Everything That is Wrong With Modern Science

[altonhare]

But you would also assert that everything that exists must be an object?

Of course not! Relationships amongst objects that exist, exist.

[altonhare]

Haven't you guys got the hang of Altons definitions yet?

Exist = object + location

So everything that exists is an object according to him.

I think Alton should make a glossary post or something

He just stated:

Not all objects exist (have presence).

That puts his definition of object outside objective science, so anything he states about his "objects" is true.

"Devils don't exist, so all devils have red horns" is a perfectly true expression.

It is called "paradoxes of material implication".

Sovereign is quoting Bill, not me. Bill limits existence to objects with location. I limit existence to objects with location and the relationships amongst objects with location (such as the motion of THIS spoon wrt to THIS table).

The definition of object is certainly not outside objective science. If it has shape, it is an object. This is an objective criterion and I can use it consistently at all times.

In physics, we study only those objects which exist, however. We're not interested in the unicorns or 3-headed dragons you are imagining in your head. I can also use exist objectively and consistently. If it has shape and location, or is a relationship amongst shapes with location, it exists by definition.

[StevenO]

This isn't philosophy. This is an issue of consistency and logic

Let's do this by using proper definitions:

Object: shape, form, bounded, finite, An object is a thing is material is physical is an entity etc. Synonyms. You don't define objects, you point at them. There is no confusion possible, the object is exactly what you see before you.

"Shape" is primitive because it is ubiquitously self-evident. Not only has nobody ever seen that which lacks shape, it is impossible to even imagine that which lacks shape. Shape doesn't mean observable, it just means shape.

"Exist" means 'physical presence'

Then let's start doing science:

The language of science, especially physics, is visualization. If I cannot point to it, I have to point at a "model" of what I propose it looks like.

Unfortunately there are just some things Nature has precluded us from seeing with our own eyes. For these we can only imagine/hypothesize their shape.

Now let's get rid of all this fancy math and numbers:

Not all objects exist (have presence). An object exists independently of your (or anyone's) personal ability to see it. They exist independent of our observation or identification, which is why they are primary/primitive.

Conclusion: You have to believe in unobservable and unidentifiable primitives. That means: your pen fell on the floor because the God of objects pulled his ropes! Why? Because I can draw it on a slide

[altonhare]

This isn't philosophy. This is an issue of consistency and logic

Let's do this by using proper definitions:

Object: shape, form, bounded, finite, An object is a thing is material is physical is an entity etc. Synonyms. You don't define objects, you point at them. There is no confusion possible, the object is exactly what you see before you.

"Shape" is primitive because it is ubiquitously self-evident. Not only has nobody ever seen that which lacks shape, it is impossible to even imagine that which lacks shape. Shape doesn't mean observable, it just means shape.

"Exist" means 'physical presence'

Then let's start doing science:

The language of science, especially physics, is visualization. If I cannot point to it, I have to point at a "model" of what I propose it looks like.

Unfortunately there are just some things Nature has precluded us from seeing with our own eyes. For these we can only imagine/hypothesize their shape.

Now let's get rid of all this fancy math and numbers:

Not all objects exist (have presence). An object exists independently of your (or anyone's) personal ability to see it. They exist independent of our observation or identification, which is why they are primary/primitive.

Conclusion: You have to believe in unobservable and unidentifiable primitives. That means: your pen fell on the floor because the God of objects pulled his ropes! Why? Because I can draw it on a slide

Your argument is completely non sequitur. Shape is an ubiquitously observable/identifiable primitive. Nevertheless objects with location DO exist whether we ever observe them or not, and they certainly exist whether we SEE them or not. It would be arbitrary to demand that ALL objects that exist emit light.

Of course you'd like to throw in the word "God" in reference to me in hopes that the simple association with religion will discredit me and my argument. This kind of tactic is the last resort of one who has been defeated.

In science, we may ask you to assume the rope exists for the purposes of explaining a phenomenon, i.e. a theory. This is when we hypothesize. Whether you personally believe the theory is up to you. In science we don't "believe" X exists or not because X's existence has nothing to do with our personal opinion. X either exists or not pursuant to the definition.

[StevenO]

Your argument is completely non sequitur. Shape is an ubiquitously observable/identifiable primitive. Nevertheless objects with location DO exist whether we ever observe them or not, and they certainly exist whether we SEE them or not. It would be arbitrary to demand that ALL objects that exist emit light.

My conclusion does not contradict any given propositions:

Alton:
1. "Objects are" (primitives, physical)
2. "Objects have shape"
3. "Shape is visible"
4. "Physics is visible objects or visible models of objects"
5. "Invisible objects are"

Steven:
6. God cannot be distinguished from an object by propositions 1-5.
7. So can invisible ropes
8. A visible pen falls on the floor through an invisible cause
9. Since I can visualize a God pulling invisible ropes on this pen I have proposed a valid physical theory.

Please add more propositions until the statement is invalidated

Of course you'd like to throw in the word "God" in reference to me in hopes that the simple association with religion will discredit me and my argument. This kind of tactic is the last resort of one who has been defeated.

It is thrown in to show that nothing in your definitions seperates them from religion or other beliefs.

In science, we may ask you to assume the rope exists for the purposes of explaining a phenomenon, i.e. a theory. This is when we hypothesize. Whether you personally believe the theory is up to you. In science we don't "believe" X exists or not because X's existence has nothing to do with our personal opinion. X either exists or not pursuant to the definition.

So, in your science one can just "define" ropes to exist? How is that different from current science that defines a "gravitational force" to exist?

[Tzunamii]

In science, we may ask you to assume the rope exists for the purposes of explaining a phenomenon, i.e. a theory. This is when we hypothesize. Whether you personally believe the theory is up to you.

In Philosophy we may ask you to assume an imaginary rope exists until a real testable mechanism is found that turns a musing into a hypothesis. If the tests hold up, & the results are reproducible. then it becomes a theory.
I cant do a test with an imaginary rope.
If it cant be tested, its not science, its philosophy. If you need to add garden gnomes to it, its not science yet. Garden gnomes lead to Black holes and dark matter.
Philosophy cannot be divorced from science, as it is a natural progression. Good philosophy leads to Good Science! But if I need to add an imaginary rope into the picture for it to make sense, then its not science yet.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKFanG5s01M <--good video
On another note, this thread has introduced me to perspectives I've never considered before, thanks to all involved.
That so many can put their intellectual hearts on their sleeves, and maintain, for the most part, such a civil discourse, says alot about the quality of ppl on these forums.
Two thumbs up

[Plasmatic]

That video is pretty god. One thing is absolutely incorrect.The science of Philosophy is not about "belief", as he used it. Thats the province of religion.

[Grey Cloud]

That video is pretty god. One thing is absolutely incorrect.The science of Philosophy is not about "belief", as he used it. Thats the province of religion.

Hi Plasmatic,
Once more you jump in with your prejudice and get it wrong. Belief is not the sole province of religion. Belief is the mean between ignorance and knowledge. If my friend tells me he has some great tunes for me to listen to, I believe him. This is based upon my knowledge of my friend's intelligence and musical tastes and his knowledge of my musical tastes. It may turn out that I do not in fact like the tunes but my belief/faith in my friend's intelligence and musical taste will be undiminished (unless it happens time after time).
Igorance - I do not know that my friend has some good tunes.
Belief - I believe that my friend has some good tunes.
Knowledge - I have heard the tunes and I know that my friend was correct (or incorrect).

There is no such thing as a science of philosophy.
I agree, it was a good video.

[Plasmatic]

Hi Plasmatic,
Once more you jump in with your prejudice and get it wrong. Belief is not the sole province of religion. Belief is the mean between ignorance and knowledge. If my friend tells me he has some great tunes for me to listen to, I believe him. This is based upon my knowledge of my friend's intelligence and musical tastes and his knowledge of my musical tastes. It may turn out that I do not in fact like the tunes but my belief/faith in my friend's intelligence and musical taste will be undiminished (unless it happens time after time).
Ignorance - I do not know that my friend has some good tunes.
Belief - I believe that my friend has some good tunes.
Knowledge - I have heard the tunes and I know that my friend was correct (or incorrect).

Well as usual your knack for making arbitrary personal accusations while maintaining complete irrelevance is apparent. Your epistemological hierarchy above is complete nonsense,and you certainly couldn't support your little trichotomy objectively. You could start by defining "knowledge" and how one acquires it,as well as "faith" and "ignorance" .[your "examples" are not definitions] But I suspect you'd revert back to your mystical "amenesis"/revelation nonsense, which makes everything else you say suspect.

There is no such thing as a science of philosophy.

You have no idea what your talking about. You might have a chance of actually making me think you did, if you could define science in an objective way . {Here's a hint chief, science is an epistemological method ]


I'm not sure why you chose to come at this the way you did but If your looking for a fight you'll find one! I'm just not sure everyone else who has been discussing this in such a civil manner wants to hear it.

[Grey Cloud]

I rest my case.

[StevenO]

Can't we all get along?

[Plasmatic]

Can't we all get along?

We were until someone decided to make it personal. Lets resume,shall we!

On the relationship of philosophy to science:

Episteme, as distinguished from techne, is etymologically derived from the Greek word ἐπιστήμη for knowledge or science, which comes from the verb ἐπίσταμαι, "to know".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Episteme

Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") .....
Etymology and usage of the word science

The word "science" comes through the Old French, and is derived from the Latin word scientia for knowledge, the nominal form of the verb scire, "to know". The Proto-Indo-European (PIE) root that yields scire is *skei-, meaning to "cut, separate, or discern".[6] Similarly, the Greek word for science is 'επιστήμη', deriving from the verb 'επίσταμαι', 'to know'. From the Middle Ages to the Enlightenment, science or scientia meant any systematic recorded knowledge.[7] Science therefore had the same sort of very broad meaning that philosophy had at that time. In other languages, including French, Spanish, Portuguese, and Italian, the word corresponding to science also carries this meaning.

Far into the eighteenth century, science and natural philosophy were not quite synonymous, but only became so later with the direct use of what would become known formally as the scientific method, which was earlier developed during the Middle Ages and early modern period in Europe and the Middle East (see History of scientific method). Prior to the 18th century, however, the preferred term for the study of nature was natural philosophy, while English speakers most typically referred to other philosophical disciplines (such as logic, metaphysics, epistemology, ethics and aesthetics) as moral philosophy. Today, "moral philosophy" is more-or-less synonymous with "ethics". By contrast, the word "science" in English was still used in the 17th century to refer to the Aristotelian concept of knowledge which was secure enough to be used as a sure prescription for exactly how to do something.[8]


Personification of "Science" in front of the Boston Public LibraryBy the early 1800s, natural philosophy had begun to separate from philosophy, though it often retained a very broad meaning. In many cases, science continued to stand for reliable knowledge about any topic, in the same way it is still used in the broad sense (see the introduction to this article) in modern terms such as library science, political science, and computer science. In the more narrow sense of science, as natural philosophy became linked to an expanding set of well-defined laws (beginning with Galileo's laws, Kepler's laws, and Newton's laws for motion), it became more popular to refer to natural philosophy as natural science. Over the course of the nineteenth century, moreover, there was an increased tendency to associate science with study of the natural world (that is, the non-human world). This move sometimes left the study of human thought and society (what would come to be called social science) in a linguistic limbo by the end of the century and into the next.[9]

Through the 19th century, many English speakers were increasingly differentiating science (meaning a combination of what we now term natural and biological sciences) from all other forms of knowledge in a variety of ways. The now-familiar expression “scientific method,” which refers to the prescriptive part of how to make discoveries in natural philosophy, was almost unused during the early part of the 19th century, but became widespread after the 1870s, though there was rarely total agreement about just what it entailed.[9] The word "scientist," meant to refer to a systematically-working natural philosopher, (as opposed to an intuitive or empirically-minded one) was coined in 1833 by William Whewell.[10] Discussion of scientists as a special group of people who did science, even if their attributes were up for debate, grew in the last half of the 19th century.[9] Whatever people actually meant by these terms at first, they ultimately depicted science, in the narrow sense of the habitual use of the scientific method and the knowledge derived from it, as something deeply distinguished from all other realms of human endeavor.

By the twentieth century, the modern notion of science as a special brand of information about the world, practiced by a distinct group and pursued through a unique method, was essentially in place. It was used to give legitimacy to a variety of fields through such titles as "scientific" medicine, engineering, advertising, or motherhood.[9] Over the 1900s, links between science and technology also grew increasingly strong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

Epistemology (from Greek ἐπιστήμη - episteme-, "knowledge, science" + λόγος, "logos") or theory of knowledge is the branch of philosophy concerned with the nature and scope (limitations) of knowledge.[1] It addresses the questions:

What is knowledge?
How is knowledge acquired?
What do people know?
How do we know what we know?
Why do we know what we know?
Much of the debate in this field has focused on analyzing the nature of knowledge and how it relates to similar notions such as truth, belief, and justification. It also deals with the means of production of knowledge, as well as skepticism about different knowledge claims.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology

[altonhare]

Your argument is completely non sequitur. Shape is an ubiquitously observable/identifiable primitive. Nevertheless objects with location DO exist whether we ever observe them or not, and they certainly exist whether we SEE them or not. It would be arbitrary to demand that ALL objects that exist emit light.

My conclusion does not contradict any given propositions:

Alton:
1. "Objects are" (primitives, physical)
2. "Objects have shape"
3. "Shape is visible"
4. "Physics is visible objects or visible models of objects"
5. "Invisible objects are"

Steven:
6. God cannot be distinguished from an object by propositions 1-5.
7. So can invisible ropes
8. A visible pen falls on the floor through an invisible cause
9. Since I can visualize a God pulling invisible ropes on this pen I have proposed a valid physical theory.

Please add more propositions until the statement is invalidated

Of course you'd like to throw in the word "God" in reference to me in hopes that the simple association with religion will discredit me and my argument. This kind of tactic is the last resort of one who has been defeated.

It is thrown in to show that nothing in your definitions seperates them from religion or other beliefs.

In science, we may ask you to assume the rope exists for the purposes of explaining a phenomenon, i.e. a theory. This is when we hypothesize. Whether you personally believe the theory is up to you. In science we don't "believe" X exists or not because X's existence has nothing to do with our personal opinion. X either exists or not pursuant to the definition.

So, in your science one can just "define" ropes to exist? How is that different from current science that defines a "gravitational force" to exist?

Steven you made some subtle but important errors, specifically #3. Shapes are visualizable, not necessarily "visible" (seeable). An object may be too small to SEE (we cannot see it, it is invisible), but if it has shape we can certainly visualize it.

Next, in prop 9, if you can point to an object and say "God" then you have a valid hypothesis. It doesn't matter if you say "cafdoanlads". There is no taboo on the word God in science, objectively it's just a sound, although you like to use it to take advantage of its connotation and make me look religious. The only requirement for a valid hypothesis is that we can present a model of it. A statue of Jesus is fine. Your "God pulling on ropes" theory sounds silly because you have presented it to sound as such. In actuality, according to thread theory, we are all pulling on ropes. Each atom in our body is under tension via the rope with every other atom. Every movement you make involves interaction with every atom in the U according to TT, and this is consistent with Mach's philosophy on the origin of inertia. Just because we throw in an object called "God" and say that he, too, is pulling on these ropes doesn't make any difference. In TT every object is pulling on the ropes, whatever you choose to call it.

Lastly, no you do not "define" your hypothesis. You just point to it. If you can't point to it you point at a model and ask your audience to assume something like this exists for the purposes of the ensuing explanation. You are not asking them to believe or have faith, but to simply make an assumption for the purposes of following the ensuing discussion. This is a very common practice in all scientific endeavors. I ask you to assume something so that I can make my point based on it. For instance, someone might ask you to assume that no object in the U is interacting with some object A, in which case the person proposes that object A will continue to move "in a straight line at constant velocity". This is, of course, a rewording of Newton's "1st law". It doesn't get the sci meth quite right as far as I'm concerned, but it's a commonly known, popular, and successful incidence of stating an unjustified assumption (unjustified because nobody has ever observed an object that is not interacting with ANY other object in the ENTIRE U) and then stating their conclusions from it.

While you don't define your hypothesis, you do, however, define what you mean by thing, object, etc. and what you mean by concept, motion etc. These are the steps that Newton skipped, I assume because he found them too difficult. He deigned not to define "time, space, place, or motion as being well known..." Unfortunately in science this isn't good enough. You can't just blow off the definitions because you think your audience "gets it". This is usually self serving to the proponent, who can then retroactively redefine the terms however s/he needs to. So, we define an object as that which has shape. Then when we formulate our hypothesis we are absolutely required to point at a shape, otherwise we have skirted our own definition.

[webolife]

I started a post here, but ended it on the R A Smith thread...
my point [over there] is that some "things" that "exist" are difficult if not impossible to visualize...
"impossible" of course is a function of imagination. I think StevenO is saying that some things that are visualizable likely do not exist, and I agree. How do you know what you've got? Observe, experiment, experience, measure... but still there will be "invisible" [both to the eye and to the imagination perhaps] things left to ponder. I don't intend to rule them out summarily.

[StevenO]

Steven you made some subtle but important errors, specifically #3. Shapes are visualizable, not necessarily "visible" (seeable). An object may be too small to SEE (we cannot see it, it is invisible), but if it has shape we can certainly visualize it.

Next, in prop 9, if you can point to an object and say "God" then you have a valid hypothesis. It doesn't matter if you say "cafdoanlads". There is no taboo on the word God in science, objectively it's just a sound, although you like to use it to take advantage of its connotation and make me look religious. The only requirement for a valid hypothesis is that we can present a model of it. A statue of Jesus is fine. Your "God pulling on ropes" theory sounds silly because you have presented it to sound as such. In actuality, according to thread theory, we are all pulling on ropes. Each atom in our body is under tension via the rope with every other atom. Every movement you make involves interaction with every atom in the U according to TT, and this is consistent with Mach's philosophy on the origin of inertia. Just because we throw in an object called "God" and say that he, too, is pulling on these ropes doesn't make any difference. In TT every object is pulling on the ropes, whatever you choose to call it.

That's fine with me, I'm just trying to represent you as correctly as possible and have a scientific discussion. The correct list should then be:

Alton:
1. "Objects are" (primitives, physical)
2. "Objects have shape"
3. "Visible things have shape"
4. "Physics is visible objects or visible models of objects"
5. "Invisible objects are"

Steven:
6. God cannot be distinguished from an object by propositions 1-5.
7. So can invisible ropes
8. A visible pen falls on the floor through an invisible cause
9. Since I can visualize a God pulling invisible ropes on this pen I have proposed a valid physical theory.

Now, what experiment do you have that would be evidence that your or my hypothesis is so much better than current or even old physics theories?

Lastly, no you do not "define" your hypothesis. You just point to it. If you can't point to it you point at a model and ask your audience to assume something like this exists for the purposes of the ensuing explanation. You are not asking them to believe or have faith, but to simply make an assumption for the purposes of following the ensuing discussion. This is a very common practice in all scientific endeavors. I ask you to assume something so that I can make my point based on it. For instance, someone might ask you to assume that no object in the U is interacting with some object A, in which case the person proposes that object A will continue to move "in a straight line at constant velocity". This is, of course, a rewording of Newton's "1st law". It doesn't get the sci meth quite right as far as I'm concerned, but it's a commonly known, popular, and successful incidence of stating an unjustified assumption (unjustified because nobody has ever observed an object that is not interacting with ANY other object in the ENTIRE U) and then stating their conclusions from it.

While you don't define your hypothesis, you do, however, define what you mean by thing, object, etc. and what you mean by concept, motion etc. These are the steps that Newton skipped, I assume because he found them too difficult. He deigned not to define "time, space, place, or motion as being well known..." Unfortunately in science this isn't good enough. You can't just blow off the definitions because you think your audience "gets it". This is usually self serving to the proponent, who can then retroactively redefine the terms however s/he needs to. So, we define an object as that which has shape. Then when we formulate our hypothesis we are absolutely required to point at a shape, otherwise we have skirted our own definition.

I'm sure Newton was quite capable of defining the terms he used, but saw no need to restate the obvious, just like you do with your definitions that you call "ubiquitous" or "self-evident".

Now, what makes a physics theory purely based on (hypothetical) visualized shapes so much better than a theory based on formula's? How would you send people to the moon through that?