Australian Politics Forum - Science and Philosophy

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Science and Philosophy
Nov 19^th, 2010 at 9:26am

I guess Science and Philosophy have not always been the best of friends. Karl Popper is even rejected by the main body of philosophers, presumably because his ideology - his paradigm of reality differed from theirs, but he's widely embraced by the vast body of .........Philosophers of Science. Is that even a real job? - Maybe it's a job like Theologists. (Calculate the number of angels on the head of a pin. Report to 3 significant places)

In science, we formulate hypotheses. Generally those hypotheses can be right or wrong. (See? It's easy when you get the hang of it) Anybody who starts using the terms falsifiable or non-falsifiable is full of sh1t, and an enemy of science.

The question of Science and Philosophy puts me in mind of this anecdote which I heard many years ago, but Google has a source for it (whether it's the original source or not). So I've cut and pasted it to save the typing:

Quote:

The following is supposedly an actual question given on a University of Washington chemistry mid-term. The answer by one student was so "profound" that the professor shared it with colleagues, via the Internet, which is, of course, why we now have the pleasure of enjoying it as well.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bonus Question: Is Hell exothermic (gives off heat) or endothermic (absorbs heat)?
Most of the students wrote proofs of their beliefs using Boyle's Law (gas cools when it expands and heats when it is compressed) or some variant.
One student, however, wrote the following:
Answer: First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time. So we need to know the rate at which souls are moving into Hell and the rate at which they are leaving. I think that we can safely assume that once a soul gets to Hell, it will not leave. Therefore, no souls are leaving.
As for how many souls are entering Hell, let's look at the different religions that exist in the world today. Most of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell. Since there is more than one of these religions and since people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all souls go to Hell.
With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in Hell to increase exponentially. Now, we look at the rate of change of the volume in Hell because Boyle's Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in Hell to stay the same, the volume of Hell has to expand proportionately as souls are added.
This gives two possibilities:
1. If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase until all Hell breaks loose.
2. If Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in Hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell freezes over.
So which is it?
If we accept the postulate given to me by Teresa during my Freshman year that, " it will be a cold day in Hell before I sleep with you", and take into account the fact that I slept with her last night, then number 2 must be true, and thus I am sure that Hell is exothermic and has already frozen over. The corollary of this theory is that since Hell has frozen over, it follows that it is not accepting any more souls and is therefore, extinct...leaving only Heaven thereby proving the existence of a Divine being which explains why, last night, Teresa kept shouting "Oh my God."

This student received the only "A" mark.

Astrology is non-falsifiable. Therefore, Astrology is .......non-falisfiable. It's also unmitigated garbage as most people already know.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Nov 19^th, 2010 at 9:33am by muso »

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: Science and Philosophy
Reply #1 - Nov 19^th, 2010 at 10:25am

muso wrote on Nov 19^th, 2010 at 9:26am:

Generally those hypotheses can be right or wrong. (See? It's easy when you get the hang of it) Anybody who starts using the terms falsifiable or non-falsifiable is full of sh1t, and an enemy of science.

...

Astrology is non-falsifiable. Therefore, Astrology is .......non-falisfiable. It's also unmitigated garbage as most people already know.

Generally those hypotheses can be right or wrong.

Generally? I'd say invariably. The only thing that makes a hypotheis a hypothesis is that you can test whether it is true or not.

Not testable =/= hypothesis
Testable = falsifiable.

therefore
not falisfiable =/= not hypothesis

Fail.

Phil 101

Back to top

IP Logged

Postmodern Trendoid III

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 10266
Gender: male

Re: Science and Philosophy
Reply #2 - Nov 19^th, 2010 at 11:00am

It shouldn't be science versus philosophy, rather, they ought to (and do) compliment each other. But ultimately, philosophy precedes science. Science can't ask why something should be studied, observed, and experimented with without resorting to philosophy. Science can't ask why it does what it does without resorting to philosophy. It all begins in abstractions.

Back to top

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Science and Philosophy
Reply #3 - Nov 19^th, 2010 at 1:38pm

Soren wrote on Nov 19^th, 2010 at 10:25am:

muso wrote on Nov 19^th, 2010 at 9:26am:

Generally those hypotheses can be right or wrong. (See? It's easy when you get the hang of it) Anybody who starts using the terms falsifiable or non-falsifiable is full of sh1t, and an enemy of science.

...

Astrology is non-falsifiable. Therefore, Astrology is .......non-falisfiable. It's also unmitigated garbage as most people already know.

Generally those hypotheses can be right or wrong.

Generally? I'd say invariably. The only thing that makes a hypotheis a hypothesis is that you can test whether it is true or not.

Not testable =/= hypothesis
Testable = falsifiable.

therefore
not falisfiable =/= not hypothesis

Fail.

Phil 101

I'm deeply honoured to fail Philosophy 101. I said generally, meaning from a broad perspective - the overall picture. I didn't imply anything else.

Philosophy can't relate anything to the real world without reference to 'scientific' observation. All knowledge comes to us via our senses. It is filtered by our hypothalamus according to our individual needs and prejudices and processed by our cerebral cortex.

Working hypotheses are testable using observation or experiment. Scientific statements are always subject to and derived from our perceptory experiences or observations.

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

Postmodern Trendoid III

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 10266
Gender: male

Re: Science and Philosophy
Reply #4 - Nov 19^th, 2010 at 3:54pm

Quote:

Muso wrote
Philosophy can't relate anything to the real world without reference to 'scientific' observation. All knowledge comes to us via our senses.

Actually, you have it back to front. It should read "science can't relate to anything in the real world without reference to a subset of philosophy, that of empiricism".

However, even empiricism begins from abstractions. Empiricism only begins when abstractions (language as metaphor) becomes solidified. Only when a particular word has been attached to a particular phenomenon does "reality" or the "real world" appear. That is, only when the flux of phenomenon is made to "stand still" through human conceptualisation does anything like the "real world" or "reality" come about. We think in words, hence why the Greeks said "in the beginning was the Word". And when we attach a particular mode of thinking to particular words, and then forget the origins of these particular attachments, do we think we live in a "real world".

Back to top

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Science and Philosophy
Reply #5 - Nov 19^th, 2010 at 8:12pm

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Nov 19^th, 2010 at 3:54pm:

Actually, you have it back to front. It should read "science can't relate to anything in the real world without reference to a subset of philosophy, that of empiricism".

However, even empiricism begins from abstractions. Empiricism only begins when abstractions (language as metaphor) becomes solidified. Only when a particular word has been attached to a particular phenomenon does "reality" or the "real world" appear. That is, only when the flux of phenomenon is made to "stand still" through human conceptualisation does anything like the "real world" or "reality" come about. We think in words, hence why the Greeks said "in the beginning was the Word". And when we attach a particular mode of thinking to particular words, and then forget the origins of these particular attachments, do we think we live in a "real world".

I'm familiar with 'empirical research', which basically research based on observation or experience. That's just part of the scientific method.

Words are something we learn from an early age. You don't have to think too deeply about the significance of language. It's something we do well as human beings. It enables us to communicate (and internalise) concepts.

I get on perfectly well in life without delving into philosophy. Our brains are basically electrochemical organs. Understand the flow of data and we start to understand something fundamental about the real world as we perceive it. Reality as it were.

The real world exists for other living organisms and it's just as real for them regardless of the fact that they can't talk.

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

Amadd

Gold Member

Offline

Mo

Posts: 6217

Re: Science and Philosophy
Reply #6 - Nov 20^th, 2010 at 7:52am

Mental masterbation IMO.
Throw the ball up, it comes down. Here on this earth I assume?

The boundaries of known science will probably always rely on philosophy to some extent. I'm sure that the vast majority in the field of science have gotten over that a long time ago.

You can't know all, but you can open up windows of understanding all over the place.
Science is a sequitor argument. It requires fact relative to our physical existence before any further suppositions can be made.

Basing a philosophy on a base of BS will accrue a greater amount of BS I believe.

I believe somebody who will tell me the truth that the ball will fall to the ground when thrown into the air, not somebody who tells me that the ball will stay suspended if I will look away and have faith in their word.

Back to top

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Science and Philosophy
Reply #7 - Nov 20^th, 2010 at 9:02am

Amadd wrote on Nov 20^th, 2010 at 7:52am:

Mental masterbation IMO.
Throw the ball up, it comes down. Here on this earth I assume?

The boundaries of known science will probably always rely on philosophy to some extent. I'm sure that the vast majority in the field of science have gotten over that a long time ago.

You can't know all, but you can open up windows of understanding all over the place.
Science is a sequitor argument. It requires fact relative to our physical existence before any further suppositions can be made.

Basing a philosophy on a base of BS will accrue a greater amount of BS I believe.

I believe somebody who will tell me the truth that the ball will fall to the ground when thrown into the air, not somebody who tells me that the ball will stay suspended if I will look away and have faith in their word.

What are the two questions most commonly asked by Philosophy graduates?i

Do you want to supersize? and
Do you want fries with that?

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

Postmodern Trendoid III

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 10266
Gender: male

Re: Science and Philosophy
Reply #8 - Nov 20^th, 2010 at 10:48am

muso wrote on Nov 19^th, 2010 at 8:12pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Nov 19^th, 2010 at 3:54pm:

Actually, you have it back to front. It should read "science can't relate to anything in the real world without reference to a subset of philosophy, that of empiricism".

However, even empiricism begins from abstractions. Empiricism only begins when abstractions (language as metaphor) becomes solidified. Only when a particular word has been attached to a particular phenomenon does "reality" or the "real world" appear. That is, only when the flux of phenomenon is made to "stand still" through human conceptualisation does anything like the "real world" or "reality" come about. We think in words, hence why the Greeks said "in the beginning was the Word". And when we attach a particular mode of thinking to particular words, and then forget the origins of these particular attachments, do we think we live in a "real world".

I'm familiar with 'empirical research', which basically research based on observation or experience. That's just part of the scientific method.

Words are something we learn from an early age. You don't have to think too deeply about the significance of language. It's something we do well as human beings. It enables us to communicate (and internalise) concepts.

I get on perfectly well in life without delving into philosophy. Our brains are basically electrochemical organs. Understand the flow of data and we start to understand something fundamental about the real world as we perceive it. Reality as it were.

The real world exists for other living organisms and it's just as real for them regardless of the fact that they can't talk.

Reality is constructed by those who make the concepts, the great majority of people don't construct them, they incorporate them, just like a sponge incorporates water. Those who really want to understand the world have to understand how those conceptualisations were formulated.
This isn't about "getting on well in life", it's about understanding.

Back to top

IP Logged

Postmodern Trendoid III Gold Member Offline Posts: 10266 Gender:	Re: Science and Philosophy Reply #9 - Nov 20^th, 2010 at 10:50am Quote: Muso wrote What are the two questions most commonly asked by Philosophy graduates? Do you want to supersize? and Do you want fries with that? Ooooh, ad hominem, how scientifically rigorous!
Back to top	IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Science and Philosophy
Reply #10 - Nov 20^th, 2010 at 3:49pm

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Nov 20^th, 2010 at 10:50am:

Quote:

Muso wrote
What are the two questions most commonly asked by Philosophy graduates?

Do you want to supersize? and
Do you want fries with that?

Ooooh, ad hominem, how scientifically rigorous!

It wasn't an ad hominem. Those are only used in debating. I'm not debating - just having fun.

In a Chemistry lab, don't taste anything
In a Biology lab, don't smell anything
In a Physics lab, don't look directly at anything
In a Medical lab, don't touch anything, and
in a philosophy department, don't listen to anything.

Newton's Law of Philosophy
+++++++++++++++++

For every philosopher, there is an equal and opposite philosopher.

Is this one of these posts that Locutius was going to delete?

Quote:

Those who really want to understand the world have to understand how those conceptualisations were formulated.

In fact, they would 'understand' several different accounts of how those conceptualisations were formulated, every one of them flawed in some way, but claiming to be pure unadulterated knowledge.

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

Amadd

Gold Member

Offline

Mo

Posts: 6217

Re: Science and Philosophy
Reply #11 - Nov 20^th, 2010 at 6:55pm

Quote:

Do you want to supersize? and
Do you want fries with that?

Before I looked at the answers, I was thinking along the lines of, "Why did I pay so much money and waste so much time on a degree which asks the same damned questions and provides the same damned answers as I had previously questioned and answered for myself?"

..and "wtf do I do now?"

At least this forum is free

Back to top

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: Science and Philosophy
Reply #12 - Nov 20^th, 2010 at 7:27pm

muso wrote on Nov 19^th, 2010 at 1:38pm:

Soren wrote on Nov 19^th, 2010 at 10:25am:

muso wrote on Nov 19^th, 2010 at 9:26am:

Generally those hypotheses can be right or wrong. (See? It's easy when you get the hang of it) Anybody who starts using the terms falsifiable or non-falsifiable is full of sh1t, and an enemy of science.

...

Astrology is non-falsifiable. Therefore, Astrology is .......non-falisfiable. It's also unmitigated garbage as most people already know.

Generally those hypotheses can be right or wrong.

Generally? I'd say invariably. The only thing that makes a hypotheis a hypothesis is that you can test whether it is true or not.

Not testable =/= hypothesis
Testable = falsifiable.

therefore
not falisfiable =/= not hypothesis

Fail.

Phil 101

I'm deeply honoured to fail Philosophy 101. I said generally, meaning from a broad perspective - the overall picture. I didn't imply anything else.

Philosophy can't relate anything to the real world without reference to 'scientific' observation. All knowledge comes to us via our senses. It is filtered by our hypothalamus according to our individual needs and prejudices and processed by our cerebral cortex.

Working hypotheses are testable using observation or experiment. Scientific statements are always subject to and derived from our perceptory experiences or observations.

All communicable knowledge comes to us via language.

Back to top

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: Science and Philosophy
Reply #13 - Nov 20^th, 2010 at 7:28pm

muso wrote on Nov 20^th, 2010 at 3:49pm:

It wasn't an ad hominem. Those are only used in debating. I'm not debating - just having fun.

In a Chemistry lab, don't taste anything
In a Biology lab, don't smell anything
In a Physics lab, don't look directly at anything
In a Medical lab, don't touch anything, and
in a philosophy department, don't listen to anything.

Which lab was this spoken in?

Back to top

IP Logged

muso Gold Member Offline Posts: 13151 Gladstone, Queensland Gender:	Re: Science and Philosophy Reply #14 - Nov 20^th, 2010 at 9:12pm Soren wrote on Nov 20^th, 2010 at 7:27pm: All communicable knowledge comes to us via language.
Back to top	1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not IP Logged