Science is concerned with observations, formulating observed consistencies, and in case of thinkers like Archimedes, Copernicus and Newton, these consistencies lead to a completely renewed perspective on what is observed.
Rational Metaphysics is baed on one observation alone: affectance. There is no causation as in a cause separate of the effect - causation is an artifice meaning to represent affectance. Scientist did not have the irreverence required to simply posit causation.
It is remarkably close to Nietzsches idea of Will To power. There is no object and object, there is only subject and subjecfication, attaining a position in time, solid being, matter - what the ancients portrayed in marble was objective nature. All of their portraits however had a subjective ‘face’ - protagonists with limitations, often subdued by other actors. Affectance is a faceless identity. It is even more ‘evil’ (cold, indifferent) than causation.
We should beware of it.
Still - since the world is going t(hr)o(ugh) hell anyway – there’s no time like the present/
Actually in RM, that isn’t an “observation”, but the definition of “existence”. It is an element in an ontological construct that can’t in itself be directly observed. But then, nothing actually can be directly observed. All observations require logic.
Great points in the OP JSS - guess it had to be said, after Science being interpreted in whatever terms others wish to describe it in in-order to push their views.
The problem with science in the sense James proposes. is that it still claims to be able to further approximate the probability of a given hypothesis. What that means is that it can only assert at most that a particular thing is probable including that the thing is probable… So when it claims that H1 (hypothesis 1) is currently the most likely one what that really means is that we have come to believe that it is, say for example, 99.99% likely that it is 99.99% likely that it is 99.99% likely… and so on that it is 99.99% likely that H1 is the most probable hypothesis of all our hypothesis…If it is as I said 99.99% likely that it is 99.99% likely and so on this amounts to a overall probability calculated by multiplying all the probabilities which when done for an infinite stream of probabilities is or approaches zero. So ultimately any assertion is 0% likely and if all are 0% likely then that any one is more likely to be true then another is indeterminate. (I would go on to consider that the indeterminabilty of reality may suggest that it is influenced by thought but then that is another subject, and only a consideration of the moment. That is to say it can be broached in another thread.)
See, again, I don’t think it means something to say ‘Science says’, since science cannot say, but scientists can. And most scientists are realists who think that their theories describe reality and are at least approximate truths. And this is how they communicate to each other and lay people. They will speak about overwhelming evidence that X is true and then often to the technology that came from that theory - not hypothesis - about X as further proof that their conception is correct.
Every philosopher say or believes his theory to be reality.
It is only when such a philosopher puts his theory to the test that it becomes “Science”.
There can be very many independent ontologies, each as true as the other. Science does not discriminate ontology.
Science is strictly the method for testing.
Science does not claim that an electron exists (for example).
It’s only claim is that such a hypothesis has never been proven wrong.
This may be your view and Popper’s view of science or what science should be, but many if not most scientists would disagree about the electron example. And many more would about, say, cones and rods and their roles in vision.
Perhaps you are right and science should be like this, but I don’t experience it as being like this. Not in professional scientific writing, conventions, conversations with scientists, books, and so on.
And I disagree that science is strictly the method for testing. It is also a set of methods of interpreting data, developing models, using these models as leads in new testing, defending models and their truth, likelihood of being true, etc.
Now yes, later, these scientists would likely admit, later testing might revise all this and show electrons do not exist, but these guys are in the business of saying what is real. They are building miles up from the assumption of the electron.
And they sure are putting forward ontologies as the way things are.
Some scientists may have those quotation marks around all conclusions, models, nouns, but most do not. They are realists out there coming up with what are the real entities, what are the real rules that determine their qualities, behavior, interactions and so on.
Now maybe you are saying they shouldn’t be doing a lot of things that get called science and seem to me to be an ongoing regular part of science - what scientists do, how they think, what they communicate - and perhaps that is what you mean by what science is and isn’t and they are part of the target audience you would hope to convince.
And let’s remember that falsification is dependent on inductive contradiction. So for the same reasons that Popper wants us to consider falsification the key - becasue of the tentative nature of empirical testing - any falsification will be vulnerable for precisely the same reasons. There are further ways in which falsification ends up being consensus based: iow a consensus of scientists think that the falsification was true. But then, if they can decide that, why not the research? And if it is consensus, then it is still tentative. So falsification cannot be determined in the way deduction can determine things.
Great post I would do what? What was the post? This is getting a little dull? [-o<
Oh no wait don’t bother James is just on another one of his word wank fests about how science is all wrong, and at the same time he is right by the power of Greyskull and his opinion. Spare me.
Guys talking shit don’t indulge fantasy or sophistry is my advice, he’s an IDiot.
Read this instead it contains more sense than anything The lord our God St James is ever likely to say in his life and it has the benefit of being true, absolutely cause I say so. Ramen.
Thank you Moreno.
When I disagree with something concerning Science (usually a “theory”), it is usually because something is being reported as “Science” when it clearly is not.
I probably did not make my point clearly. It is implicit in what I said that science relies on evidence. My point was that falsification also relies on evidence/induction, which raises problems for saying that one can know a theory can be falsified. IOW for the same reasons that Popper wants to say that theories are not true, but simply haven’t been falsified yet, falsification then itself slides away since it is inductive also.
There are other gnarly areas in induction - like what specifically is falsified is not always so clear. But that’s another essay.
Yeah to me it seems you are merely using semantics to introduce controversy to a field that already acknowledges that controversy is a fundamental of everything science is. Waste of time? Probably.
It seems to me that you have not understood what I wrote, nor have you recognized an issue within the philosophy of science. That’s fine that you don’t understand it, but don’t tell me what my motives are, unless you are claiming to be psychic.
Nothing you say in this post is relevent to what I wrote. I see nothing that indicates you understand the philosophical issues surrounding induction, so instead you simply get a sense I am criticizing science, which I am not, and make a political statement based on ignorance. I am critical of Popper’s philosophy of science.
Start with Humes challenge to induction, then read Popper or at least some summary on the web. Then when you understand that I was not criticizing science, let me know what you think about what I actually wrote and not your fantasy of it.
I’ll criticise unreflecting sophistry any way I want thanks and if that is philosophy of science I’ll eat my hat. Whether you were criticising science or not is of no interest to me or what I said except to say what you say is introducing controversy to a field which already has it by reciprocal; what is though of concern though is your illogical reliance on a non sequitur to make a point that is in itself a non sequitur by virtue of being one to start with.
Is all very well unless the premise is itself not a logical fallacy. Induction by its nature is reliant on making a “guess” and then formulating a proof based on it, it is not however subservient to that guess being true or in any way remotely evidential or supported by anyone let alone a majority.
All of the swans we have seen are white. Therefore, all swans are white. Is a fine example of where you are going wrong. It doesn’t matter whether everyone agrees on something or not, or whether it is probably true, it either is or it is not and evidence and experiment etc merely asymptotically approaches the truth. Falsification is not some absolute, nor is it defined by who does or does not agree, nor is it anything to do with how many swans I have seen that are white. The relationship of induction to falsifiability in your example is being mangled. It’s as if you are saying if they can decide what is true, then they can decide x thus falisifiablity runs into problems logically without considering what it is and in what context you are talking about it. Popper would spin in his grave I think.
I think you should go back and read Hume before you re read Popper personally, but I wouldn’t be so gauche as to patronise you with such an assertion, now would I?
Ultimately science accounts for induction and falsifiability by saying nothing is true only an approximation of it. There is no problem with induction, only on those who abuse the term to claim empiricism is making logical claims on truth that it is not. The problem per se is not existent, it is an invention made to try and sway those who dislike empiricism on the basis of a black swan no one has seen.
A theory is not true or false, it is merely proven or not. The problem with fallacy and or induction (if there even is one) is those who use it to induce fallacies which are mere sophistry.
