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

On 26 Feb 2013, at 02:18, JAG 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') ;)
>

All problems are solvable or meta-solvable (showing precisely why we  
cannot solve them).

I don't believe in science and philosophy. I believe in scientific  
attitude, and I believe those are domain independent. In Europe,  
philosophy is litterature.




>
> >
> >
> > > 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.
> > 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;
>
OK.



>
> 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....
>
I agree. But some use the label "philosophy" to introduce problems  
where there are none. This hides genuine problems.




>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > 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".
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > 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.
> > 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 am not sure the word "prohibition" should be used here. We cannot  
divide by zero, for example, but that's not prohibition: it is logical  
impossibility. We cannot fly to the moon with the force of the arms,  
but that's not prohibition, that's a physical impossibility.




>
> 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*?
>
This is a mystery. I follow David on the critics of both inductionism  
and justificationism, but to make sense of even just that, I need  
induction and I hear their justification.
I do induction all the time, and justification is part of my  
profession. I just guess that they use the words in some stronger  
sense than I do.





>
> >
> > >
> > > 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...
>
I don't assume cause and effect, nor matter and time. Those can be  
explained as high level construction of the mind.
 From comp, I have adopted a simple theory of everything, which is  
just elementary arithmetic. All the rest is what numbers do to figure  
out what numbers are. The physical universe is an number  
epistemological construction. Church's thesis completely rehabilitates  
Pythagorus. Literally.





>
> 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
>
I prefer you make your point, because I got about 30 mails by people  
wanting that I read papers. And now I begin a new teaching period, so  
I have a sharp scheduling.




>
> "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 ;)
>
> Many societes have consciously chosen to maintain and preserve  
> certain and such practices to evolve further and higher, not  
> necessarily on the materialistic/technological plane of existence,  
> but that of the mind and spirit, 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
>
The idea is to take the simple notion, from which we can derive/ 
justify/explain the most, and of course without hiding too much data.





>
> 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 ;)
>
I don't believe in Nature, nor in philosophy. A good philosopher is  
just a good scientist, working in domain which might not yet accepted  
by a majority of scientists, during some period, for cultural reason.





>
> > >
> > > "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
>
That's the young Wittgenstein. The older one is more serious.  
"language" can be used to hide problems, not to solve them.




>
> "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
>
Ah Ah. Here Socrates lacks a bit of humility :)

Bruno



http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/





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