Re: 'Justified' Developments in Philosophy of Science? getting there....!

On 27/02/2013, at 4:34, "JAG" <jaguarnight2012-/[email protected]> wrote:

> 
> --- In [email protected], Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >
> > 
> > On 18 Feb 2013, at 20:03, JAG wrote:
> > 
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In [email protected], Bruno Marchal wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yes. But I think this might be our consciousness here and now. All
> > > > other conscious content can be doubted.
> > > > But I do agree that elementary arithmetic is almost not doubtable,
> > > > although, strictly speaking, it can.
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > OK. (To be sure I don't believe in "philosophy of science", except
> > > > conventionally for the curriculum. Either we tackle problems with a
> > > > scientific attitude, or we don't).
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Bruno
> > > >
> > >
> > > yes, but don't forget that tackling problems with a scientifc 
> > > attitude is also the goal;
> > >
> > OK.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > sometimes we do take things for granted
> > >
> > And the problems arrive. Better never take anything for granted, 
> > especially in public discourse.
> 
> to my view, and according to my philosophy, method and cosmology/theology, there are NO problems; there are only challenges!
> But then, yes, there are problematic approaches and problematic individuals....
> 
> Furthermore, I think that behind each and every problem lies a solution, it has too, and it's just a matter of time and manner/method to solve it. (otherwise it is just an oxymoron, and not a 'problem') ;)
> 

In the first paragraph you are pretty categorical with your "there are NO problems" and then in your second you assert that "behind each and every problem lies a solution".

This contradiction is a problem.

Your second paragraph is a reasonable version of David Deutsch's central theme in BoI:

"Problems are inevitable.
Problems are soluble."


> 
> > 
> > 
> > > and we beleive that we do deal with problems with the appropriate 
> > > attitude and method, but that is not always the case, and that is 
> > > exactly where Philosophy of Science aims -and becomes important:
> > >
> > > To make sure that we are in line with a truly 'scientific' attitude 
> > > and at the same to point out various problems and implications.
> > >
> > But it is not difficult, except for the people who believes that they 
> > know the truth.
> 
Do you think "know" means "certain of"?



> > Faking confidence might still be a social game, probably due to our 
> > long biological evolution, but I think we can learn to put the 
> > interrogation marks and become more and more aware ... of our basic 
> > ignorance, and become aware of the hypothetical nature of all our 
> > public theories.
> > 
> > And that's concerns also philosophy of science. It should be a branch 
> > of science too. Science is mainly doubts make clear and public. It 
> > needs courage only.
> > 
> 
> Courage, indeed, in-deed! ;)
> 
> "How much truth does a spirit endure, how much truth does it dare?
> More and more that become for me the real measure of value. Error...is not blindness, error is cowardice."
> -Friedrich Nietzsche, Ecce Homo
> 
> > 
> > 
> > >
> > > Furthermore, i will argue that Philosophy of Science is about 
> > > 'testing' and even discovering more appropriate=valid attitudes 
> > > towards that goal.
> > >
> > Yes, but not in any normative way. A philosopher of science should not 
> > try to tell a scientist how to do science. That would be like a 
> > zoologist trying to tell a centipede how to walk.
> 
> no, but it's about being "complementary" -trying to see the 'whole', even from different/opposing points of view and perspectives; 
> 
> Any scientific/philosophical iquiry is nothing else, at least, than a testing of the *reality* in question, and all available means/methods should be employed....
> 

Not merely a testing. Both science and philosophy are about generating good explanations.

> 
> > 
> > 
> > >
> > > Now, the next logical question is how scientifc attitude deals with 
> > > *meaning* and what aspects should be included, both to have a 
> > > functional scientific approach and then DEFINE what a scientific 
> > > approach is and/or should be all about!
> > >
> > > Is *meaning*(and asking *why*) outside the scope and method of 
> > > Science?
> > >
> > If by "meaning" you mean something like the "meaning of life", I think 
> > that, assuming the comp theory, we can show that it is not part of 
> > science, but something private. But in some other theory things can be 
> > different.
> > 
> > If by "meaning" you mean semantic, then a lot of procedure can be 
> > described and be amenable to public studies, like the denotational 
> > semantics of Scott for attributing semantic to computer program, or 
> > model theory (a branch of mathematical logic) to study the semantic of 
> > formal mathematical theories, or the attempt by Montague to build 
> > semantics for large part of "natural languages".
> 

Bruno makes a very good point here. Meaning is hard to grasp. The meaning of "meaning" is ambiguous. He provides at least two there.


> > 
> > 
> > 
> > >
> > > or is it that we haven't developed, yet, a truly scientific method 
> > > good enough to include aspects that were so far excluded/'prohibited'?
> > >
> > There is no prohibition in science, just fashion, and bad habits, and 
> > concerning some domain, we can only hope and wait that people get less 
> > emotional. Such domain are often in the hand of people who makes money 
> > with lies, and who exploits the reasonable fear that we, the animals, 
> > can have toward basic fundamental things, like life, death,
> > values.
> 

Bruno, what do you mean by fashion in science? Are you endorsing some version of Kuhn's framework?

Fashion, to me, sounds rather whimsical. It's as if, if science is indeed motivated by fashion, that there need be no connection to reality. That the theories of science are not just useful fictions...but *not even* useful. 


> > This leads to give authority to other people, and, despite it has been 
> > a useful natural strategy, it is embarrassing for the long term.
> > 
> > Computer science can be used to explain that all ideally 
> > arithmetically correct machines, get conflicting view about themselves 
> > when looking inward, and this makes them intrinsically unsatisfied 
> > most of the time. That kind of discovery might help to accept that 
> > once alive we face problems, and are ignorant, and makes us modest, 
> > trying to be less wrong and to reduce the harms, instead of defending 
> > naive idea about truth and false.
> 
> Very true and correct. But I was talking about 'prohibitions' in Popperian terms, where more 'prohibitions' in a theory could result in making the theory 'stronger'; and it is partly correct and true true but then we have to question the nature and validity of those prohibitions themeselvs. ;)
> 
> I guess that is exactly where we had some disagreement with Alan earlier, and so far i have not heard any good 'explanation', why Popper, and DD for that matter, reject *justifications*?
> 
Really? I suggest the first 3 chapters of FoR. Just search this very list for that word (yahoo has a good search facility).

Justifications are ways of giving positive support to some argument. But then what justifies the justifications? Something else. And so on. It leads to a foundation. Which one cannot justify. And what justifies the rules of inference as well? Apparently, nothing.

Now there is another discussion going on, on another list, that this is not the complete picture. It has also to do with the fact justifications - positive arguments - will never only justify one explanation, but many simultaneously. Check the BoI list if you want.


> 
> > 
> > >
> > > what is the true nature of this problem?
> > >
> > The many conflicts between the cortex, the limbic system, the cerebral 
> > stem, the left hemisphere, the right hemisphere, in each of us, and 
> > then the many conflicts with the colleagues, the boss, the employees, 
> > etc.
> 
> indeed but what about cause and effect?
> check this out:
> 
> http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0052970
> 
> i think it would be wise to reflect for a while, and ponder about causes and effects here, about how various Developments and processes take place (brain wiring/functioning, cognitive etc.) about the effects and affects of socialization and conditioning, and see both the relativity and potentiallity...in all those processes themselves, and how they are influenced, and then could be modified in return, by our ideas, values and beliefs...and philosophies and methods...
> 
> thus, we DO need to be aware of all variables and processes of our epistemology, but then somehow ESCAPE ourselves from the very same -and then come back, of course, to balance things out...to find objectivity by subjective means...
> 
> I think that is exactly where and what multi-disciplinary studies attempt to do...
> 
> so, here are some interesting findings about brain functioning, again, from a different perspective and approach:
> 
> http://www.journalsleep.org/ViewAbstract.aspx?pid=28569
> 
> "We are such stuff
> As dreams are made on, 
> and our little life
> Is rounded with sleep."
> -Shakespeare, The Tempest
> 
> > About numbers, machines, and a fortiori the humans, there are no 
> > simple solutions.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > >
> > > what is exactly the goal here?
> > >
> > 
> > Science can study its limitation, and recognize that some things are 
> > beyond its method. Like "truth". Science, or fundamental science can 
> > be said to be the best tool in the quest of truth, but it is also the 
> > worst one when trying to define it.
> > The goal is multiple. But for fundamental science we can say it is the 
> > quest of truth, keeping in mind that we can only hope for being less 
> > wrong, at least in some "theory". meanwhile we can try to be just as 
> > clear as possible to make higher the probability of being shown false. 
> > This is in line with David.
> > 
> 
> yes, exactly....thus, the need for self-reflection and contemplation, and 'arguing', and then for comparison of findings with like-minded individuals, that is, with open-minded and creative individuals ;)
> 
> "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity,
> and I'm not sure about the former." -Albert Einstein
> 
> and speaking about contemplation here is another interesting study:
> 
> http://www.frontiersin.org/Human_Neuroscience/10.3389/fnhum.2012.00292/abstract
> 
> I would argue that MINDFUL Meditation is the best medication, and one of the best ways to avoid Prozac and the like, and also one of the best ways to join in and log in to the Divine and the Universal ;)
> 

I have argued, on this list and others, about the usefulness of meditation and, indeed, the philosophical insight such practises can bring. But...

> 
> Many societes have consciously chosen to maintain and preserve certain and such practices to evolve further and higher,
> 

This is garbage, to my mind. What does "evolve further and higher" even mean? And how can meditation accomplish this?


> not necessarily on the materialistic/technological plane of existence, but that of the mind and spirit,
> 

How are the mind and spirit different?


> with great success, with different epistemological modes but very similar results, and by no means they could be considered static... ;) 
> 
> http://www.integralscience.org/einsteinbuddha/
> 
> http://quark.phy.bnl.gov/~pisarski/talks/Colloquia/Lopez.pdf
> 
> once we learn how to join in the Universal then there is no need for other defenses -that could make us miserable and even intoxicate further our consciousness and epistemic process:
> 
> http://www.ar.cc.mn.us/biederman/courses/p1115/Defense%20Mechanisms%20Handout.pdf
> 
> > 
> > 
> > >
> > > "Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set 
> > > of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the 
> > > equations and makes a universe for them to describe? The usual 
> > > approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot 
> > > answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model 
> > > to describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother of 
> > > existing?"Stephen W. Hawking
> > >
> > Why indeed? But did some Universe bother to "really" exist? Or are 
> > they just appearance in number's dreams?
> > 
> > On that question, (why there is something instead of nothing) I can 
> > argue that, assuming computationalism, arithmetic provides the best 
> > solution we can hope for. 
> 
> really? ok but then 'truth' can also take many forms 
> 
> http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2013/02/do-we-live-inside-a-mathematical.html
> 
> http://aaas.confex.com/aaas/2013/webprogram/Session5800.html
> 
> http://www.sciencemag.org/content/315/5814/966.abstract
> 
> "Nature is a language and every new fact one learns is a new word; 
> but it is not a language taken to pieces and dead in the dictionary,
> but the language put together into a most significant and universal sense. I wish to learn this language, not that I may know a new grammar, but that I may read the great book that is written in that tongue." -Emerson
> 
> > It explains why we cannot understand why we 
> > believe in arithmetic without assuming arithmetic at the start, and 
> > then it explains why universes becomes apparent, stable, and having 
> > communicable sharable parts (quanta) and non communicable parts 
> > (qualia). And if you add the classical theory of "knowledge", the way 
> > the universe(s) arise becomes testable/refutable.
> > The numbers remains mysterious, but the fact that "the numbers remain 
> > mysterious" can be entirely explained (again, in that theory).
> 
> that's what am talking about...and what Philospophy of Science is all about=to understand the processes involved and then to produce methods...creative and productive methods...
> 
> Bruno, i think that regardless your 'scientifc' background and opening statement above (about 'disbelief' in Philosophy of Science), i would say you are rather a 'natural' Philosopher of Science yourself ;)
> 

Your love of quotes, I have said before, is a love of authority. Which ain't any good. But if authority impresses you...look up Bruno Marchal - on this list and elsewhere. He is more accomplished, and has better ideas than many people you quote. So, by your own lights, surely telling someone with all the knowledge of Bruno Marchal, who he is and what he thinks, is awfully presumptuous!


> 
> > >
> > > "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not 
> > > certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to 
> > > reality." -Albert Einstein
> > >
> > Absolutely so, and even provably so for the ideally correct machine, 
> > in their "toy theology".
> 
> http://www.kurzweilai.net/preserving-the-self-for-later-emulation-what-brain-features-do-we-need
> 
> > 
> > Bruno
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> "Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
> 

He was totally wrong about that and this idea led him well up the garden path of bad ideas. Language is not the only game in town. Philosophy is not only about language.

What do you think of that quote? Let's actually talk about some of these quotes of yours rather than letting them pepper your postings like too much spice in a cheap meal. Let's start with this Wittgenstein quote. I assert it's rubbish for the reason I have just gave. What do you think about it?


> 
> "True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing. 
> And in knowing that you know nothing, 
> that makes you the smartest of all. 
> As for me, all I know is that I know nothing." 
> -Socrates
> 
He was smart, right? But what do *you think* about what he says? From what you have given us there, in glorious isolation (a massive problem with quotes of this kind - no context whatsoever) is that, as it's written, it looks like Socrates is after certainty from knowledge.

If he was after good explanations, then he would know, that he does indeed know all that he thinks he actually knows. Right?

Brett.
> 


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]