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

--- In [email protected], Brett Hall <brhalluk@...> wrote:
>
> On 27/02/2013, at 4:34, "JAG" <jaguarnight2012@...> 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.


There is no contradiction here; the first paragraph is about the existential nature of a 'problem' (the one you seem to ignore sometimes) and the other is the idea about the 'solubility' of a problem, and that's where we are optimistic -and in line with DD;



> 
> Your second paragraph is a reasonable version of David Deutsch's central theme in BoI:
> 
> "Problems are inevitable.
> Problems are soluble."
> 

Full agreement here, am just asking, "what is the best way and why so?"

Furthermore, a *challenge* is nothing else but a creative approch and personal attitude as an aid when dealing with certain problems. It's a matter of strategy and then of application-practice.

It is brave and optimistic in nature, as a a feeling-emotion, and alters many processes. Think of it as the 'moral' of the scientist-philosopher. It's the attitude we have towards certain cosmological and social events from a more prominent and novel position. 
It does not mean that a problem is not a problem, rather it gives another quality to is, its due respect and admiration.

;)


I think that DD accurately, and creatively, grasped the concept and the importance of *emergening* properties.

Thus, the *causal* aspects are justified. What am saying is that we need to justify the causal, and then justifications themselves. here the concept and process of *emergentism* solves both ontological and epsietemological aspecs of knowledge and method. so am happy and satisfied.Thus, we are all good here on this! ;)

what am saying is that the same, *emergentism* applies to our epistemic processes themselves.

In like with DD, and that where i can see his brilliance, at the conceptual level, i would suggest that *emergentism*, and its emboided physicalism (don't forget that), is the correct choice, it is necessary, and then it could become a true representation of the events. more succesful if in conjustction though, with other activities explained from a relativistic perspetcive -and then even extend this to functionalism.  


.
> > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > 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"?
>

*know* here in terms of 'knowing more', the most available that could *justify* and explain process themesleves, its nature and properties. Certain aspects of human experience of the Universal are ineffable. 

For example, to *know* the Tao is different than to be able to 'explain' it. ;) 

but then, by *knowing* one could find better ways to decsribe it.....

Now, the problem with Dualistic thinking is that it can NOT ecsape *DUALISM" thus, it negates the method and the results, thus, all-conclusive and 'wholistic'  ;)

The same goes for methods of 'contemplation'  ;)
 
> 
> 
> > > 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.

exactly - when good explanations are generated, then, we are accept them, and we are in agreement! 

Furthermore, we can justify that we should accept as findings from both aproches -actually, they are different forms and projections of the subject matter and its consclusions, -with similar involvement of cognitive and affective processses.

Indeed, what am saying is that we need both; in fact, and looking form the outside now, the bif picture metaphorically, they are the necessary 'ying and yang' of the cosmic fabric. ;)



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

ok, it's not exactly ambiguous but it has similar negative effects, but it is the ambigious 'explanations" and 'justifications' that make meaning kinda 'doubtful'. In yours words, ambigious. Interpratation  of meaning is relative and then very specific. Generalization is possible but not always true and valid.

Understanding the nature of the problem implies and negates the right choice of method and tools. The wholistic model includes everything and all that there is. There are relativistic and vitalistic and computationalist and existential aspects at work here. We can not ignore some aspects and processes. The goal is to find the best possible and available method to approach a 'problem' in all-inclusive and all-conclusive manner.

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

You are kinda 'wrong' the way to see it here (not justified in approch/conclusion here)  ...it does not work that way; 

don't make it real in that sense bc it does not exist....

> 
> 
> > > 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.

well said, well done! There is no disagreement here, but if we can not justify a foundation that means we are in trouble. Furthermore, i propose that there is a way to justify a few things, a few foundations, thus, we should not reject the whole process based on the assumption that it does work -always or in that way. ;)

Popper somehow rejected psychoanalysis as non-scientific.

I would tell you that psyconalysis is in fact the study of the (strucrure) of the Uncoscious Mind, and that it can be explained in many terms and ways; in ours days, unconscious processing can be viewed scientifically. 

Now, saying that *psychoanalysis* is not (or can not be) scientifc based on Poppers views, is kinda hasty and not accurate.

What am saying is that we should not ignore and reject some methods and attempts based on other assumptions and older claims and findings.

> 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...

so now finally and hopefully, you can grasp the idea and meaning of what a complementary theory/method is all about, and of course, recognize its necessity too? ;)

> 
> > 
> > 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?


It's about understanding the process of knowing and then mastery of Awareness. It's about understanding 'causes' and 'effects' and then finding productive ways to have desirable results-solutions. 


> 
> 
> > 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!

The love and use of quotes is not appeal to authority as you say, you are wrong, conceptually....

Even if most quotes are out of context here, there is a connection; that's the goal here: to provide first variety of opinion -and method, and then see the relations, and the role as conceptual freamework for inquiry, even if this entils disagreement; but you have to do the work for yourself too, to connect the dots and see the whole picture....see how quotes promote that?

You are using authority in the wrong sense here; and in general now, authority in one thing/field does not guarantee authority in another.
I don't see the connection with Bruno as you put it above.

 Some times things and people do go and put things together but sometimes is about the merging and the emerging and the correct dialectic, in terms of vitalism and 'rationalism' and yes, not just than in terms of reductionism...yes...

 but in general, don't take things for granted and don't enforce your conclusions as other people's opinion. (for example here, your assumption that the love of quotes is love of authority).

The same goes with the referal and use of various studies here! ;)

To show the variety and what is needed; to show both the prosess and the available means and then specifically show how certain ides provoke further action towrds unity and menaing and towards inspiration and Creativity. 

We need to constantly evaluate -and then promate the well being and mastery of- our own epistemological processes. 

> 
> 
> > 
> > > >
> > > > "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?

a quote makes me *think* so it serves my need and purposes; critical thinking is essential. I don't necessarily agree with this quote but his claims provide grounds for inspiration and conceptualization. 

in return, I would paraphrase him and say that:

"Science is a battle against the bewitchment of intelligece by means of technology"  ;)

At least, we can see, even metaphorically, that there exist some 'bewitchment'....which is both emergent and then included and/or rejected based on our orientation and method. ;)

And that is where 'wholism' provides solutions, by conteplating both, the problem and the method -and then the results-conclusion-development. ;)

> 
> 
> > 
> > "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?

He is *good* in terms of virtue. in terms of humility. it's about aware of the potentiality and the limits of one's own epistemic processes, and then be brave and humble enough to admit it. Ego-inflation is both, a potential reality (yes, it is a stage in the personality development and in epistemic evolution) but also the cause of misinterprteting reality -and then claiming authority. 
Probably, the same kind of fhe authority you claim that you reject elsewhere -but then somehow you need to have elsewhere!  ;)

Ignorance and double standards are the enemy, and these could come from either scientific or philosophical arrogance -and claim for superiority. 

I am not rejecting *rationality*, rather i sugest that we are in  need for its impovement -and then propose specific ways to achieve it ;)

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

JAG



"To return to one's true home is to return to one's original nature- to rediscover one's real Self  -to regain the awareness of the Wholeness which was never lost but only forgotten".
-Master Li Jun Feng