A Humans-Only Club for Philosophical Debate and Discussion
https://mail.onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/
https://mail.onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=16810
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.
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.
Gertie wrote: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.
Faustus5 wrote: ↑July 16th, 2020, 11:37 amThen, if you think that, what is your objection here?Sculptor1 wrote: ↑July 16th, 2020, 11:25 am 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.
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑July 16th, 2020, 5:24 pm 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.
Faustus5 wrote: ↑July 17th, 2020, 9:07 amWhat 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?Terrapin Station wrote: ↑July 16th, 2020, 5:24 pm 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
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑July 17th, 2020, 9:23 amWhat 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?
That doesn't even resemble a solution of any kind. It's more like a word salad
Faustus5 wrote: ↑July 17th, 2020, 4:05 pmAside 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.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?
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑July 17th, 2020, 7:30 pm 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.
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑July 17th, 2020, 7:30 pm 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?
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑July 17th, 2020, 7:30 pmMy 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?
Faustus5 wrote: ↑July 18th, 2020, 7:34 am 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."
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).
Papus79 wrote: ↑July 16th, 2020, 11:43 am 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.
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑July 18th, 2020, 8:51 am 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.
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑July 18th, 2020, 8:51 am 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.
) Atla wrote: ↑July 19th, 2020, 5:38 am 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.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.
"Dark matter" and "dark energy" are simply short for "we don't know what is causing these measured anomalies". How is that quackery?