Philosophy versus Science.
This thread should complete the thread “Subjectivity versus Objectivity”. Most scientists are subjectivists. They subjectively dictate the objects and objectivity because of their methods and the fact that they have become more and more dependend on their money givers. But what about philosophers for example? Are most of them subjectivists too?
Happy new year!
Thesis:
Science is not philosophical enough and philosophy is not scientifical enough, because philosophy is more theoretical than science, and science is more empirical than philosophy.
I think there are problems comparing science with philosophy even
if philosophy and science were one and the same for most of their history…
from the Greeks down to the 19th century, they were one and the same…
it is only within the last 100 or 150 years has science and philosophy been about
different things…
science is about facts that can be measured, weighed, timed,
put into categories…you can photograph something in science…
whereas in philosophy… how do you weigh justice? or how do you
measure fairness? what is the good? and how would you put this into
a category? …
you cannot in philosophy do what science does which is predict
what will happen from your weighing or measuring…
for example, Einstein created his theory of Relativity from
an error that Newtonian science couldn’t answer…
the placement of the planet Mercury… they were wrong
in their prediction of where the planet would be in its
revolutions of the sun… and that one little fact is what
set Einstein off on his pursuit of a answer which was
the theory of Relativity and his special theory… which
the theory of relativity did explain and answer the question
of the path of Mercury…
what or how would you use philosophy to explain or predict
something like science does? you really can’t… not as
philosophy is set up today… change the very nature of philosophy
and you might be able to create a philosophy that is able to explain
and predict as science does…
science and philosophy are two distinct and separate
idea’s with two distinct and separate methods of functioning…
can you make one like the other?..
that is the question that people like
Russell and Whitehead and Wittigstein tried to answer…
and they failed…
it doesn’t mean it is impossible, just very hard as
we know science and philosophy today…
Kropotkin
Excellent!
Perfect!
A truth that could not have been better stated.
=D>
Actually … no.
David Hilbert had already published what you now know as “General Relativity Theory”. And although using Newtonian physics didn’t work to accurately predict Mercury’s path, Einstein’s general relativity field equations didn’t work either. By considering Mercury, Einstein corrected his own theory, having to add a metric tensor (a “fudge factor”) in order to get the right result. It became common practice in Science to merely add in an unexplained, phenomenal “universal constant” into a relation in order to rectify equations with observations. To this day, it takes a philosopher, not a scientist, to give any semblance of competent justification for why those constants exist.
Science finds formulas with which to predict (often using inexplicable constants to rectify simpler ideas) and almost always for military purposes. They do not seek comprehension and answer to the deeper question, “Why”. And it is from that lack of understanding that Relativity Theory has been erroneously taught as an ontology rather than merely a useful formulaic perspective.
As an ontology, Relativity is broken.
I didn’t have to change the very nature of philosophy in order to do it. What I had to do was start from scratch, forget what science had taught as truth and with hardcore insistence on pure logic, proceed to deduce what was necessarily true regardless of what anyone had ever thought. Eventually after a great deal of construction, I discovered that I had replaced the teachings of physics with a deeper ontological understanding that not only covered all of the bases that science has covered, but all that they have yet to get to:
Affectance Ontology
What you have to change (as RM:AO indicates) is the nature of society.
Thanks.
James S Saint:
David Hilbert had already published what you now know as “General Relativity Theory”. And although using Newtonian physics didn’t work to accurately predict Mercury’s path, Einstein’s general relativity field equations didn’t work either. By considering Mercury, Einstein corrected his own theory, having to add a metric tensor (a “fudge factor”) in order to get the right result. It became common practice in Science to merely add in an unexplained, phenomenal “universal constant” into a relation in order to rectify equations with observations. To this day, it takes a philosopher, not a scientist, to give any semblance of competent justification for why those constants exist.
Science finds formulas with which to predict (often using inexplicable constants to rectify simpler ideas) and almost always for military purposes. They do not seek comprehension and answer to the deeper question, “Why”. And it is from that lack of understanding that Relativity Theory has been erroneously taught as an ontology rather than merely a useful formulaic perspective.
As an ontology, Relativity is broken.
K: there are several thing here and I am attempting to understand
let us begin with this idea that Relativity is broken? are you referring to
the system or structure of relativity being broken? are you referring to
relativity as broken because it doesn’t explain being or doesn’t show how being
is possible? what exactly do you mean? as I have said, there are several things here…
I will approach them later once I understand exactly what you mean…
Kropotkin
An ontology is a language constructed so as to form an under-standing, a foundation, of reality. If any inconsistency, contradiction, or paradox develops, the foundation of the understanding is cracked or broken, thus requiring a cognitive dissonance. In the region where such dissonance takes place, one must simply look away or step over the region and proclaim a lack of consistent under-standing. Einstein, himself, admitted such a lack of consistency despite the very useful equations when used only in their isolated regions. And later he had to add even another inexplicable constant to his field equations to rectify yet another inaccuracy.
An example (of several) in Relativity (as an ontology) is the issue of an observer traveling around a small circle at near the speed of light. The theory requires that even though the observer can easily be aware of the circular nature of his travel, he must perceive that the distance around the circle be less than the diameter of the circle. How can there be a circle that has a smaller circumference than diameter? How could it be a circle at all?
There are other examples of cracks in the foundational understanding called “Relativity” that have been pointed out throughout history and one that I debated considerably here on the science forum. As a “true-to-reality” ontology, Relativity does not qualify, rather it is merely a more accurate means to calculate specific issues than Newton had proposed years earlier. Relativity isn’t a theory as much as a shortcut tool for the mathematics: "In this circumstance, if we temporarily pretend that time and distances are different, then we can calculate, with high accuracy, a resultant behavior". Today, even more accurate means than Relativity can be used while maintaining complete consistency in understanding, but politics is politics forever and always.
That is what I meant by “a broken ontology”.