Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Atla]

Instead of trying to explain why for example galaxies spin too fast, we should realize that galaxies are just bits of reified mathematics, just tools from our imagination.

[Gertie]

Bruno - welcome!

Because it responds to human action and the way it works in itself is never exactly the same, there is always a slight difference, because everything that goes on in nature is a concrete fact.

A concrete fact is the fact taken not only in the logical relation that expresses it, but in all the accidents necessary for it to happen. It is precisely these accidents that the experiment isolates: the accidental element is removed and only the logical definition is left behind. In nature there is no such fact, only concrete facts. Imagine how many experiments humans have done since inventing this business. A large number, no doubt. But what is this set of experiments in the face of all concrete facts? It is zero. This means that the whole of what experimental science can know is nothing compared to real nature. And this real nature can be known in itself only by contemplative observation that accepts it in its entirety as a mysterious fact, which is what it really is. That is, the concrete reality taken in its total presence is a mystery, no doubt, and the totality of what science knows about nature is a bean, that does not say what nature is or does, but how it reacts to certain human questions and provocations.

I think there are obvious caveats to what our own subjective observations and resulting assumptions can tell us about the world - we are flawed, limited creatures 'designed' by evolution to be able to navigate the world in order to survive and reproduce, not see and understand everything with some 'God's-eye' pov. And the scientific method relies on tools like inter-subjective review and repeatability, predictability and falsification to try to make the best of the flawed and limited observational and cognitive toolkit nature gave us. Hence the language of science now tends to be of theories, models and accounts, which are always open to correction. That seems right to me. I'm not sure there's a better way. If there are anomalies, or ''accidents'', that reinforces the need for such caveats, but they are already there.


I'm not sure what your conclusion means -

Modern science was born with this childhood illness of subjectivism. It will be necessary to cure it of this, but it can only be cured by articulating the active and interrogative point of view with the contemplative attitude of accepting the concrete reality.

The ''contemplative attitude of accepting the concrete reality'' is surely no less subjective an activity?

[Steve3007]

The ''contemplative attitude of accepting the concrete reality'' is surely no less subjective an activity?

I tried to have a guess at what that might be intended to mean. My guess was that it meant thinking about ontology. So, essentially, that would mean thinking that the best way to decide how many teeth a horse has is to sit and ponder it, rather than go look in a horse's mouth.

But until Bruno returns, it is just a guess.

[Sculptor1]

They are speculations treated as real things.

I don't know of any serious, mainstream scientist who thinks any of those things are anything other than tentative proposals in need of further evidence and understanding. At least in the case of dark matter and dark energy, there is objectively something that requires an explanation, even if the ones being offered at the moment prove inadequate.

Then, if you think that, what is your objection here?

[Faustus5]

Yes. The better approach is acknowledging that we're simply talking about it instrumentally in terms of the mathematics and current theories we use. The better approach amounts to not taking the things we imagine to help make the mathematics and conventions more relatable (such as "dark matter"/"dark energy") to amount to a literal ontological reality.

That doesn't even resemble a solution of any kind. It's more like a word salad in response to the fact that our models are making wrong predictions. It doesn't help at all and doesn't even try.

(Mind you, we are both on the same page with our shared annoyance at mathematical realism making people mistake models and calculating tricks for objective, mind-independent realities. I just think your calling some of this stuff "nonsense" is bizarre and unsupportable. There might really be ontologically real dark energy or dark matter that could one day be experimentally verified. Or maybe we just need new models.)

[Terrapin Station]

Yes. The better approach is acknowledging that we're simply talking about it instrumentally in terms of the mathematics and current theories we use. The better approach amounts to not taking the things we imagine to help make the mathematics and conventions more relatable (such as "dark matter"/"dark energy") to amount to a literal ontological reality.

That doesn't even resemble a solution of any kind. It's more like a word salad

What part do you not understand or do you not think is clear (for it to count as "word salad")? And if you had requirements for what you'd count as a solution why didn't you state them prior to asking?

[Faustus5]

That doesn't even resemble a solution of any kind. It's more like a word salad

What part do you not understand or do you not think is clear (for it to count as "word salad")? And if you had requirements for what you'd count as a solution why didn't you state them prior to asking?
[/quote]

Let me put it another way: early astronomers noticed that observed planetary motions did not match the predictions made by Newtonian physics models, so they proposed the existence of new, so far unobserved planets that would explain the discrepancies.

How is the proposal of dark energy or dark matter substantially different than that?

[Terrapin Station]

What part do you not understand or do you not think is clear (for it to count as "word salad")? And if you had requirements for what you'd count as a solution why didn't you state them prior to asking?

Let me put it another way: early astronomers noticed that observed planetary motions did not match the predictions made by Newtonian physics models, so they proposed the existence of new, so far unobserved planets that would explain the discrepancies.

How is the proposal of dark energy or dark matter substantially different than that?

Aside from the fact that energy existing "on its own" is incoherent, it's not different than that, but it's also not different than the fact that many proposed retrograde motion, either. My solution is to be up front that this stuff stems from an instrumental approach. Just because retrograde motion is an instrumental solution to the data, that doesn't justify an ontological commitment to it.

[Faustus5]

Aside from the fact that energy existing "on its own" is incoherent. . .

Can you cite a mainstream physicist or cosmologist saying this, in their own words, and also document that this view is widespread?
Again, that doesn't even begin to be a "solution" to anything. It's at best a PR stunt. And what exactly do you mean by "instrumental" approach, as contrasted by some other, equally effective, approach that would substantially drive to different conclusions and methods?

Observations do not fit the models. The models need to change or we need to propose the existence of something out there that would explain what we observe. "Nonsense" should be a term reserved for genuine lapses in scientific practice, which is absolutely NOT what is happening with proposals involving dark energy or dark matter, even if history judges them as errors.

[Faustus5]

Okay, I'm going to try again and be more careful with the formatting. Really wish this place had a post editing option.

Aside from the fact that energy existing "on its own" is incoherent, it's not different than that. . .

Can you cite a mainstream physicist or cosmologist saying this, in their own words, and also document that this view is widespread?

My solution is to be up front that this stuff stems from an instrumental approach.

Again, that doesn't even begin to be a "solution" to anything. It's at best a PR stunt. And what exactly do you mean by "instrumental" approach, as contrasted by some other, equally effective, approach that would substantially drive to different conclusions and methods?

Observations do not fit the models. The models need to change or we need to propose the existence of something out there that would explain what we observe. "Nonsense" should be a term reserved for genuine lapses in scientific practice, which is absolutely NOT what is happening with proposals involving dark energy or dark matter, even if history judges them as errors.

[Terrapin Station]

Can you cite a mainstream physicist or cosmologist saying this, in their own words, and also document that this view is widespread?

It's certainly not a widespread view, which is entirely my point in this thread. I'm supporting aspects in which modern science tends to be "quackery."

Are there any mainstream physicists or cosmologists who say this? I don't know. I'd have to search for one. But it's completely irrelevant what anyone else says. I don't post as a journalist here. That's never what I'm doing here. And I'm certainly not about to suggest an argument from authority for anything.

Again, that doesn't even begin to be a "solution" to anything.

Yes, it is. It's a solution to not forwarding ontological garbage under a misunderstanding of what science is even doing (re instrumentalism).

[Atla]

With some things they're attempts to Bondo or duct tape models that have passed their sell-by date (particularly dark matter / dark energy seem to be this way).

And how do you know that? Maybe there really are forms of 'matter' in the universe we haven't been able to find yet (I would be very surprised if there wouldn't be any). Or maybe our current models simply contain errors, or are fundamentally wrong.

"Dark matter" and "dark energy" are simply short for "we don't know what is causing these measured anomalies". How is that quackery?

[Faustus5]

Are there any mainstream physicists or cosmologists who say this? I don't know. I'd have to search for one.

Well, one would have to wonder why you would bring up such a view in the first place if no one seems to hold it.

Yes, it is. It's a solution to not forwarding ontological garbage under a misunderstanding of what science is even doing (re instrumentalism).

No, a solution posits an explanation which tells us why there is a mismatch between models and reality. Your "solution" is akin to just switching one's perspective while looking at a Necker cube. The problem doesn't magically go away when you do that. At least that is how it seems to me with what detail you've provided.

My assumption is that, since we tend to agree on almost everything, were you to carefully spell out your beefs about instrumentalism, I'd probably nod my head. (I would post a lot more around here if you weren't a member; almost every time I want to respond to someone, you've usually done it already and said what I wanted to, only better. )

I just don't see how you draw a logical line from that subject to a place where an apparently uncontroversial proposal in cosmology turns out to be "nonsense". Wrong for reasons X, Y, and Z, sure. "Nonsense" = unnecessary hyperbole.

[Sculptor1]

ERROR. Sorry my typing is for ****.

The periphery of science has always included specuation.

As long as the method holds true then there is nothing wrong with this specualtion since parts of it, shown to be effective, make the core of science as time passes, and as more, and more secure empirical knowledge bolsters certain ideas.

The mistake has always been confusing the specualtive statements as if they were on the same level as the more demonstrative and replicable statements.

That is usually the fault of "popular science" as so often cited from idiotic magazines of popular science on this an other forums.

The trick is to stay skeptical and make distinctions between good science and empty headed click bait.

[Papus79]

And how do you know that? Maybe there really are forms of 'matter' in the universe we haven't been able to find yet (I would be very surprised if there wouldn't be any). Or maybe our current models simply contain errors, or are fundamentally wrong.

"Dark matter" and "dark energy" are simply short for "we don't know what is causing these measured anomalies". How is that quackery?

It's only quackery if someone wants to tell us that we're almost at the end of physics and we just need to physically get our hands on dark matter, dark energy, etc. to prove its there. The good news - I doubt that's a common belief among scientists, just that unfortunately that's how they tend to convey it to the layperson.