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

On 26 Feb 2013, at 20:42, Brett Hall wrote:

> 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:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > <snip>
> > > >
> > > > 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?
>

Not really. When I ask to a logician, teaching logic in some  
university, if he intend to teach Gödel's theorem, he answered me that  
it was not in fashion. But Quine new foundation was in fashion.  I was  
more thinking to the arbitrariness of the funding, for this and that  
domain. At some other level, it might be related to Kuhn, like the  
"fashion" to abandon theology to the clergy, and no more addressing  
the question with the scientific manner. This is a bit more than  
fashion, but is related. My interest relies in afterlife, beforelife,  
parallel-life, and it becomes timidly reconsidered thanks to Everett,  
and Deustch, but most academics disqualify this as "theology", which  
it is, but today, it is a fashion to disqualify theology. It is  
cultural also, and based on the success of Aristotle simplification of  
Plato's theory.




>
> 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.
>
I don't see this. it is like with the clothe fashion. Clothe are  
useful, for decency and warming oneself. But the choice of the clothes  
is driven, for many, by fashion and cultural habits. Same with  
science. Some domain can be fashioned, and then been forgotten by  
fashion. In Sienna I met an important guy in the history of  
provability logic (GL, GLS, or G and G*), and he told me he was no  
more working in the subject, and that the subject was no more "à la  
mode" (in french), that is literally out of fashion.





>
> > > 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.
>
Intuition and definition. Everyone accepts that from A and A -> B, we  
can justify B. I interpret "justification" as logical explanation.   
Then I tend to agree that there is no positive support of truth, but  
there is positive support for plausibility. If not, I would not find  
plausible that there is coffee in my kitchen.




>
> 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.
>
But observation itself supports infinities of explanations. That is  
not a problem, as we will choose the shorter one, or the one  
conceptually simpler.




>
> > >
> >
> > 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...
>

OK. And if some people feel help in prosac, let them be free to use  
it. Meditation can have bad side effects. Well, some illegal plants,  
like salvia divinorum, can have much less bad effects than mediation  
or prosac. Prohibition has led to so many misinformation in that  
domain. It is very sad.



>
> >
> > 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!
>

I can agree with this :)

But then, is not David on the limit of using such kind of authority by  
singling out so much Popper, Darwin, etc. I think it is better to make  
a point, and refer discretly to those who have inspired or get the  
idea first, by honesty. If not it looks like idolatry, which is a form  
of authority indeed.



>
> >
> > > >
> > > > "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.
>

I can't agree more.



>
> 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?
>
I agree that this quote sum up a big error in philosophy (in the sense  
of fundamental science). There is a use of language to systematically  
hide the problems. It is a bit like the use of the "unconscious" in  
some psychology. It is not problem solving, it is problem mockery.





>
> >
> > "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?
>

Of course "I know nothing" is already a logical contradiction. But to  
be fair with him, he might have intended to just say that he does not  
know a lot. As Plato illustrates, Socrates was a good questioner.

Bruno



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





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