LHC is a merely scienctific tool to investigate the unlimate buliding block of the matter. The real issue is whether there is something such or not. And, that is not a new question but pending for answer since ages.
That question is philosophy and LHC is science.
The quest of the religions is also the same: finding the ultimate reality, the very cornerstone on which everything is built upon. So, what is the difference other than the means of investigation?
Science can never lead philosophy. And, science can never give any insights whatsoever.
Having said that, untamed scientific can influence mankind but that would lead to chaos. Because, science cannot decide on its own whether something is really required or not, to which extent it is required and in which way it should be used.
That is why philosophy has to bridle science always. And, when this does not happen, the research in atomic field would lead to the tragedy of Hiroshima and Nagasaki everytime.
Obe, as i see it now, there is too much social and scientific chaos. As most of intelligentsia has been migrated towards science for various reasons, the speed of innovation is far more than the mankind can digest. Furthermore, all innovations are not in proper direction. It cannot go on forever.
Sooner or later, the system would collapse under its own burden and mankind would have to think once again about its direction.
Your list here is thoroughly incongruous. Voltaire is conventionally not classified as a philosopher and though he dabbled in science like many others in that age, he discovered absolutely nothing. Neither did he produce any philosophical works which proclaim him a “philosopher”. You seem to imply that he had something to do with voltage (electric potential) because of his pseudonym VOLTaire. Why else would you have mentioned his name? He definitely does NOT belong in your list based on any of the criteria you mentioned.
Also please indicate where Lorentz (I assume you mean Hendrik, a dutch physicist) was a philosopher before he was a scientist! In fact I recall nothing about him which even relates to him being a philosopher let alone being a philosopher before he was a scientist. Where do you get your information from I think is a fair question.
The same goes for Georg Ohm. Everything that’s mentioned about him relates to physics and mathematics.
This list is extremely faulty. None of these people apply to what you’re trying to prove and if I’m wrong show me where.
Another incongruity! If as you say science uses ontology - a branch of metaphysics - instead of method, how can you claim that science seriously lacks metaphysics? Even without that contradiction, this statement shows absolute ignorance as to how science actually proceeds. What has metaphysics got to do with resolving science problems or paradox? I’m sure scientists from all over would be extremely interested to know how that could even be accomplished through metaphysics??
I’m sorry! but nothing you’ve written here makes the least amount of sense. For one thing, among others, the terminology of philosophy is seldom applicable to science. The other way around invokes an almost complete separation. When it’s used in that manner as here is screws up both philosophy and science. Amazingly, there is not a single statement or inference which is correct in your post.
Sorry, it was Volta, not Voltaire (been a while, grade school stuff for me).
A philosopher is required to figure out what is to be figured out. In Votla’s case, it was an issue of measuring the strength of specific movement that seemed relevant. Thus he had to metaphysically define a unit of measure, the “volt” without any scientist trying to tell him what it was.
Scientists then try to figure out if he was observably false.
The same situation with Ohm and Lorentz (his aether theory).
They were the philosophers who began the thing you now call science. It was a philosopher who stated Nullius in Verba. The prior name for “Science” was “Natural philosophy”.
It helps to be a philosopher (preferably an ontologist) if you are trying to figure out what a philosopher actual does and what science actually is. Scientists are technicians, nothing more. Although today’s “scientists” are more like monks working for the Secular Church.
Philosophy is about reasoning, Logic, Mathematics, understanding (ontologies), and epistemology (defining words). Philosophers have created all religions, sciences, and governing methodologies. Unfortunately there is an insidious lot as well as an altruistic lot, some as serpents and some tasked to catch the snakes in a pit. Everything involved in societies, both good and bad, has been derived from philosophers.
Religion is merely metaphysical philosophy being applied to sociology.
Science is merely one particular philosophy being applied as the art of observational confirmation.
Natural observations even during the time of Volta are not defined by metaphysics. If a volt had to be metaphysically defined as compared to simply not being understood what caused it we still wouldn’t know what it is.
What this implies is that anything not understood scientifically must be metaphysically defined in philosophy…a non sequitur. Newton wrote the Laws of Gravity but had no idea what made it work. He did not proceed to define this gap metaphysically if he could not explain it scientifically. Instead “his philosophy” on the subject of not knowing was Hypotheses non fingo whereas your described methodology would give it a metaphysical resolution.
To repeat, Ohm and Lorentz were scientists not philosophers. They proceeded by theory combined with experimentation. This is not within the purview of philosophy and almost certainly philosophy was not on their chalk board when writing down the math.
Galileo, Kepler and Newton were the true beginnings of science. That was the point of no return. In your context of applying metaphysics to science, Kepler was an outstanding case. He was addicted to the idea of the five Platonic solids in describing planetary orbits. But this Platonic perfection didn’t correspond to observation. Instead he had to completely rearrange the math and forgo the philosophy of perfection into something more elliptical. In short, he had to renounce metaphysics regardless of how perfect it seemed to describe the actual movements of planets around a centre. This wasn’t easy for him being much more influenced by philosophy than either Galileo or Newton.
Philosophy “no-longer” decides anything relating to science. Though it may have created it, philosophy can no longer expound it. The kids, the grand kids and the great great grand kids moved on to become more genetically remote defined by their own specific objectives. As once with religion when priests were the intermediaries to God so with philosophy when method, the scientific kind, came into being the core principle of which is if you really want to understand something you have to yield to it and NOT to your preconceptions which philosophy then as now - though not quite to the same extent - is subject to.
And people like yourself and also scientists do not.
It takes a metaphysicist, much like myself, to actually understand what it is.
No. What it implies is that until something is philosophically defined, you can’t measure it. How can you measure it or even make any claim about it at all, if you don’t even know what it is?
He made no attempt to "explain it “scientifically”. He took and older idea (for which he was sued for stealing) and applied measurements to it. His claim for the “laws” (later to be found flawed) were all about “how much”, not about “what”. He didn’t even come up with the names involved like “gravity”. He merely measured the effects, giving them consistency in numbers, quantified and thus much more usable. The theory prior to that time had been merely a rational explanation concerning a magical “force”, but with no way to be more certain, no way to verify the theory of “gravitational force”.
In reality, there actually is no such “force”, but that is something scientists are simply not qualified to consider. They don’t know what they are measuring. They simply know that they can consistently predict an effect and it is called “gravity”. They have no idea at all as to what is really happening that makes it work. They will tell you that themselves.
That is what I just said.
To repeat, they were “natural philosophers” who helped to begin the confirmation philosophy of falsification, or “Scientific Methodology”.
Math is merely another example of philosophical thought being applied to quantities. Like myself, they were “polymaths”.
Your argument is that because Plato didn’t get it perfect, it doesn’t count?
I’m afraid that would disqualify ALL “scientists” to date, whether natural philosophers or not.
I have found that such isn’t true with the exception that “science” has become a egocentric religion now, and thus doesn’t allow anything that embarrasses it. Science is in desperate need for philosophical update by a real metaphysicist rather than their amateur pseudo-science fantasizers (such as Higgs or Feynman).
Consider taking your own advice. I see you as the one exercising preconceived superficial notions.
Actually, the non sequitur You are speaking about, is not the product of some philosophical fault, it was the outcome of a different way of arguing things. The way the hypothetical was verified was no longer a deductive, but an inductive process, but still, it is the hypothesis which precedes the verification. Right or wrong, it is always some idea in the Platonic sense, that is followed by various trials and errors of substantiating an inductive argument.
According to the question whether it is more science or more philosophy, you both are right, because it depends on the lingusitics, especially on the semantics of both words. In former times it was the linguistic convention to Interpret many phenomenons more scientifically than philosophically, in former former ( ) times, for example in the ancient Greece, it was the linguistic convention to Interpret many phenomenons philosophically. The conclusion is: You have to come to an agreement when it comes to define and value the words “philosophy” and “science”.
In modern times of the Western culture the word “philosophy” has not as much good reputation as the word “science” (and as in pre-modern times of the Western culture); so we have to consider this as well when it comes to define and value the words “philosophy” and “science”.
Currently most people are wrong when they say this or that is more scientifical than philosophical - because of the fact that the word “science” is more “chic” and the word “philosophy” is more “antiquated”. That’s the linguistic convention - fortunately or unfortunately.
Science also hides certain truths to prevent taking the heat that religion has taken. Which makes it open to falsification; especially when people accept answers from it as blindly as others accept answers from religion. Different labels assigned to different things to breed confusion and distract people so that control and power could be taken by a set group while humanity searched in circles for the answers it lost. Certainly you could say the same of religion at that point if Science had made its mistakes before religion had instead of vice versa.
I don’t want to be insulting but you truly sound as if your ideas came straight from out of some lunatic asylum:
monad wrote: If a volt had to be metaphysically defined as compared to simply not being understood what caused it we still wouldn’t know what it is.
And people like yourself and also scientists do not.
It takes a metaphysicist, much like myself, to actually understand what it is.
…so what prevents you from submitting your metaphysics to a science journal for the correct explanation of what “Volt” means or is that too deep for mere scientists to understand?
monad wrote: Philosophy “no-longer” decides anything relating to science. Though it may have created it, philosophy can no longer expound it.
I have found that such isn’t true with the exception that “science” has become a egocentric religion now, and thus doesn’t allow anything that embarrasses it. Science is in desperate need for philosophical update by a real metaphysicist rather than their amateur pseudo-science fantasizers (such as Higgs or Feynman).
…this must be one of the greatest highlights of hubris, stupidity and willful ignorance I ever encountered. There are no words to describe this statement!! It deserves an entry in a book called Non Campus Mentis: freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/578176/posts
monad wrote: The kids, the grand kids and the great great grand kids moved on to become more genetically remote defined by their own specific objectives. As once with religion when priests were the intermediaries to God so with philosophy when method, the scientific kind, came into being the core principle of which is if you really want to understand something you have to yield to it and NOT to your preconceptions which philosophy then as now - though not quite to the same extent - is subject to.
Consider taking your own advice. I see you as the one exercising preconceived superficial notions.
…Yes! Thank you for this correction. I’ll definitely have to consider it coming from a great metaphysician such as yourself especially one so far in advance of those amateur pseudo-science fantasizers (such as Higgs or Feynman). I’m beginning to question the toxicity factor of philosophy on some human brains.
BTW Newton’s Laws of Gravity are NOT FLAWED. They are “perfectly” valid within operational limits meaning non cosmological distances.
I’ll have that pseudo fantasizer Richard Feynman deliver the last word in explaining one of his theories:
You can now go back and live in your Medieval metaphysical castle and allow me to live in the 21st century. What that means is I don’t want you to respond to any posts I make in the future. I don’t mind “intelligent” counter views to discuss but not the near necrotic ones you come up with…or as someone once wrote:
“It is now the age of now. This concept grinds our critical, seething minds to a halt.” No kidding Huh!
The above posting was originally directed to Arminius instead of James S Saint. I didn’t look carefully enough at the nesting for which I apologize to Arminius.
Other than that I wouldn’t change a word in that post.
Well equally, I don’t want to insult you either, but I can see that you have no support for your opinions, and I am not going to argue over these things with a 6-grader mentality (blind faith in the holy prophets of sciencism and techno-miracles).
One fundamental difference is that science is constantly changing and frequently gets things wrong and has debates about opposing theories. i.e. like are there many universes? did the big bang happen? etc… Most religions do not do this, a few do like Zen Buddhism etc… Most religions though are the same now as when they were written.
Also, Science makes no claims to morality; religions do, except Zen and maybe a few others. I guess you need to specific what religion you mean. Generally speaking though, those are the two major ones.
Except that you are talking about the “Science” from 100 years ago. Today’s “science” is “Sciencism”, a religion that promotes very specific beliefs (which happen to be incorrect) and disallows anyone to prosper if they don’t first accept those beliefs (such as The Standard Model, Relativity, or Quantum Physics). You have to be one of their clergy in order to debate any topic and be heard. The “Scientific Community” is simply a spread out, obscured version of the Vatican.
What would be an example of a belief that science promotes that is incorrect?
Also, many people thought Newton was right and he was at “normal speeds”, yet as we approach the speed of light he was incorrect. So, in this respect science promoted Newton as correct although he was not but when Einstein came along they changed their opinion. They now promote Einstein as correct, is he? Most likely not as Relativity breaks down at the quantum level but I guess it is the best we have. When the next genius comes along, I highly doubt science will not update itself and that is a fundamental difference from religion.
Science carries with it the stench of unmistakability. My generation was raised in an era where science was seeking to establish a foothold against the stagnancy of religion. In the heat of that battle, Science had placed itself above religion as a prominent force of information, disregarding all that religion has and will bring to the table. In fact, for a long time, Science has distanced itself from God in large to bring us information we have needed. Certain bits of information and trains of thought are precluded as a waste of time and unscientific by default before you even become considered as a prominent figure in the science community.
Science breaks down at the same point as everything else breaks down: an inability to cross-platform and reach all audiences. This isn’t exactly one belief in general, but a mixture of varying beliefs being misrepresented by a tyrannic force that strangleholds resources.
) times, for example in the ancient Greece, it was the linguistic convention to Interpret many phenomenons philosophically. The conclusion is: You have to come to an agreement when it comes to define and value the words “philosophy” and “science”.