Log In   or  Sign Up for Free

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

Humans-Only Club for Discussion & Debate

A one-of-a-kind oasis of intelligent, in-depth, productive, civil debate.

Topics are uncensored, meaning even extremely controversial viewpoints can be presented and argued for, but our Forum Rules strictly require all posters to stay on-topic and never engage in ad hominems or personal attacks.


Use this forum to discuss the philosophy of science. Philosophy of science deals with the assumptions, foundations, and implications of science.
User avatar
By Quotidian
#108228
Thanks for the very thoughtful answer.
Steve3007 wrote: If I do not believe in such higher levels of existence, that doesn't stop them from existing for you.
The difficulty here is the collapse into relativism. What is true 'for you' may not be true 'for me'. I guess from the viewpoint of a pluralist society, that is also a pragmatic attitude to take, and necessary. But your reply doesn't offer the possibility of what I would call 'Capital T Truth', that is, a level of truth that is not simply 'true for me' or 'true for you' but actually true.

It is interesting how, on the one hand, you can then say 'well, I don't believe in such a thing as 'higher truth', but on the other, if you do, that is OK'. It seems to me that this essentially reduces truth statements to matters of opinion. It is very neighbourly, as it were, but seems unsatisfactory regardless. Of course, this simply reflects the moral dilemma of modern life. Our 'criteria for truth' is, after all, scientific and logical, which doesn't evaluate 'ought' statements (cf Hume).
For example, what does it mean to "understand" something, in the sense that we are using it here? One definition of the word involves knowing of an underlying mechanism for something by which you can, to some extent, predict its behaviour. But people often like to think they mean something "deeper" than this.
I would take 'some people' to include 'philosophers'. The issue is that since the Enlightenment, the meaning of philosophy itself has changed.

I will acknowledge I have a somewhat religious view of the nature of philosophy. It is not religious in the sense of defending a particular dogmatic faith, but in the sense that it understands 'the transcendent' as being something which can only be grasped by the intuitive ways of knowing that are associated with religion, namely, meditation and contemplation, and that the attempt to understand such things, constitutes a kind of spiritual discipline. To try and make that relevant to this particular conversation, let's consider it in terms of 'reality and appearance'. This was, in a very real sense, the underlying impulse of Greek philosophy, in general. It is also the origin of what you identify as 'the ability to perceive patterns in nature and make predictions on that basis'. This actually was central to Pythagorean science, for instance.

But with the Greeks, this also was associated with a somewhat religious view of life, insofar as 'the philosopher' was one who was able to 'penetrate appearances' and understand 'the underlying reality', whether in terms of 'the ratios' or 'the forms', or whatever. This is one of the factors that gave rise to science in the first place.

At the time of the Enlightenment, it was believed that the discovery of Newton's laws provided science with a way of accessing 'the underlying reality behind appearances', namely, the reality of the interactions of mass and so on. This is the origin of the modern outlook of scientific materialism. By and large we're still in that view, often unknowingly.

This is why the Copenhagen interpretation was such a challenge to science. It undermined the very idea of an 'observer-independent reality'. This has still never been resolved.

Going back to the Greeks, the best-known allegory of 'higher truth' was Plato's Analogy of the Cave. This presents the notion of a complete re-orientation of perception, analogous to the difference between living in a cave, and emerging into the outside world and seeing by the light of the sun.

I don't think modern philosophy has any analogies for that idea. I can see analogies in Buddhist and Hindu philosophy, but none in (for instance) Bertrand Russell or A J Ayer.
Favorite Philosopher: Nagel Location: Sydney
By Steve3007
#108229
The difficulty here is the collapse into relativism. What is true 'for you' may not be true 'for me'.
Yes, but I have to say that doesn't bother me much. I'm not much of a believer in capital 'T' truth. I find the idea unsatisfactory! Even the things that seem rock-solid objective, like the existence of physical objects are, in my view, estabished by common consent between each other. And between our senses (as exemplified by the Macbeth dagger scene.) But you will perhaps say I am a slave to the zeitgeist!
I would take 'some people' to include 'philosophers'.
People with particular philosophical views, I guess.
...with the Greeks, this also was associated with a somewhat religious view of life, insofar as 'the philosopher' was one who was able to 'penetrate appearances' and understand 'the underlying reality', whether in terms of 'the ratios' or 'the forms', or whatever. This is one of the factors that gave rise to science in the first place.
Yes, I presume the concept of universal laws would not have developed without the ancient Greek ideas of underlying forms and truths behind superficial reality. But, in my limited understanding, these ideas also led to some strange unhelpful consequences didn't they? Like the slavish adherance to the concept of mathematical perfection resulting in embaressment at the discovery of irrational numbers or the insistence that the planets of the solar system must be squeezed into perfect spheres bounding the 5 regular solids. 5 solids. 5 visible planets. 4 elements. Mmm. That's not right. There must be a mysterious 5th one. Wasn't that how it supposedly went?

Does the scientific method not also owe a lot to the more practical view of life that to understand you have to do more than simply introspect, but you have to actually start with observations?
User avatar
By Quotidian
#108243
As I have said, the empirical view of modern science has great utility and pragmatic benefits. But I see it only as a 'philosophy' in the same way that engineering firms or accountancy practices have 'a philosophy' - the way they go about things, the kinds of things they value. But it is not 'philosophy' in the sense that the word was defined by the Western philosophical tradition, starting with the Greeks.

As for the supposed down-sides of Platonic and Pythagorean beliefs, certainly they had their eccentricities, but at the same time, as Russell observes in History of Western Philosophy, the influence of Pythagoras was arguably instrumental in why science, as we now understand it, developed in the West, and not India or China.

That is why I find it very satisfying that physics itself has thrust these deep philosophical questions back into center-stage, although many people continue to ignore them.
Favorite Philosopher: Nagel Location: Sydney
By Xris
#108269
Just read the article you kindly referenced. You might have realised I am no academic, by my common use of language, so I would love to understand what logical reasoning there is behind the idea that there is only the mind?

Philosophy has a place in exploring what we do not understand and giving science a reason to explore but in my opinion it can never fully replace the painfully constant observations and measuring. As a fault finding technician I always had to believe what I saw and not what I tried to assume. Understanding, as science does, the belief that an observation can alter the outcome, to me is so illogical it has to be dismissed. Ernst Mach constantly denied this metaphysical position to the point of clashing with theoretical science, even to the belief that Atoms do not exist as a particle. This argument or view of the quantum world is not knew, we will not be last to find the dual nature of the said particles a major scientific and philosophical problem. As I have said before so much hinges on the concept of light as it is explained. If it is wrong then theoretical science may be put back a hundred years. It matters not if we believe this article about the soul in the quantum brain but it sure will if people like Bill Gaede in their madness are showing us the possibility science could be totally wrong.
Location: Cornwall UK
User avatar
By Quotidian
#108300
I am not going to try and explain that essay further, other than to observe that Richard Conn Henry is a qualified and reputable physicist. Elsewhere he remarks that he has arrived at an idealist philosophy purely and simply on the basis of what physics has shown. There are others like him, see this Guardian article by Bernard D'Espagnat.
the belief that an observation can alter the outcome is so illogical...it must be dismissed
Indeed, those who discovered it would love to have dismissed it. Science would've very pleased indeed if quantum mechanics was not contradictory, puzzling and absurd. But it simply IS. Why do you think Neils Bohr said 'anyone who has not been shocked by quantum physics has not understood it yet'? Richard Feynman 'Do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possibly avoid it, "But how can it be like that?" because you will get "down the drain," into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that.'

So I suggest that your habitual tone of righteous umbrage is probably not going to do a lot of good. Better to try and read up on it.
Favorite Philosopher: Nagel Location: Sydney
By Xris
#108301
What is there to read but acceptance of the impossible? No one has suggested that the concept of light might just be fundamentally wrong. Steve admits that photons are a mathematical expression with no viable reason to call them particles. So if they are not particles what in hell are you observing? Observing particles when there are no particles should not give rise to all the consequences it spawns.This one and only error has caused science to travel a road of deception and fraud. I for one will not sign this petition. I care not if the whole of humanity sign, call me ignorant, fool hardy, I will not put my name on the believers list.
Location: Cornwall UK
By Steve3007
#108311
Xris. A little while ago on this thread (beginning of post #45) I said that maybe we did agree after all but, if the past is any indication of the future, if we started talking about this stuff again you'd start saying things that made it look as though you hadn't understood what I was saying.

Maybe it's just the way you phrase things. Maybe it's the way I phrase things. Maybe it's the fact that it's so difficult for everyone to be unambiguous and consistent with the language on a subject like this. But it looks to me as though the future does indeed resemble the past and that now has indeed happened:
Steve admits that photons are a mathematical expression with no viable reason to call them particles. So if they are not particles what in hell are you observing? Observing particles when there are no particles should not give rise to all the consequences it spawns.
I just don't recognize this as a description of what I said.

What I said, in this and other threads, possibly with slight variations of phraseology, is that this is my view:

There are observations and measurements. There are patterns and regularities in those observations and measurements. There are models, made from bits of mathematics, that describe those patterns. The word "particle" corresponds to one such model. The word "wave" corresponds to another. Some aspects of the set of observations that we collectively refer to as "light" can be described by one model and some by the other. Likewise with electrons. When you look at light you are observing light. When you look at an electron you are observing an electron.

Others may disagree with this description, but it is what I said. I just don't see how you get from that to the three sentences I quoted above. I can't for the life of me understand how you can still be saying things like "If they are not particles what in the hell are you observing?" if it is in any way a reference to anything I have said.

But, as I said, maybe it's just phraseology. Maybe it's just the fact that sentences like "a photon is a particle of light" are used so frequently elsewhere without explaining precisely what is meant by this sentence.

---

It's a pity, because I thought for a moment, from parts of your previous post, we were doing OK:
Philosophy has a place in exploring what we do not understand and giving science a reason to explore but in my opinion it can never fully replace the painfully constant observations and measuring.
Spoken like a true empiricist! I agree that, in the pursuit of working out how observable things are going to behave, it starts with observations. But people will point out that things that can be observed and measured with the senses are not all there is to life. And I wouldn't want to dispute that.
As a fault finding technician I always had to believe what I saw and not what I tried to assume.
Again, as far as I'm concerned, so far so good. I agree that theories about the reasons for what you're observing are all very well but, ultimately, they must be subservient to what is observed to be true. Of course, this is all in the narrow context of science; of universally reproducible observations.
Understanding, as science does, the belief that an observation can alter the outcome, to me is so illogical it has to be dismissed.
I'm a bit more puzzled by this one. Is it really so crazy that observing something affects it? Isn't it known to be true, regardless of anything that quantum mechanics might say? What quantum mechanics says is that these effects cannot be made arbitrarily small.
we will not be last to find the dual nature of the said particles a major scientific and philosophical problem.
Whatever the strange nature of quantum mechanics might be, the more general idea that two different pieces of mathematical modelling can both play a role in describing a set of observations surely cannot be so strange can it?
By A Poster He or I
#108321
Quotidian said,
Going back to the Greeks, the best-known allegory of 'higher truth' was Plato's Analogy of the Cave. This presents the notion of a complete re-orientation of perception, analogous to the difference between living in a cave, and emerging into the outside world and seeing by the light of the sun.

I don't think modern philosophy has any analogies for that idea. I can see analogies in Buddhist and Hindu philosophy, but none in (for instance) Bertrand Russell or A J Ayer.
To my mind, most modern philosophers of science would not agree with the analogy of Plato's Cave, so it makes sense that there would be no equivalent. If we divide up modern philosophers of science very roughly into realists, pragmatists, positivists, and relativists, none of these stances claim that the perspective outside of the cave is any "truer." Even a realist might be more likely to say such a view is "more comprehensive" perhaps, a pramatist "more useful." A positivist would find little evidence for any "hierarchy" of truth in the two perspectives, and a relativist would actively deny such a hierarchy.

Though I agree that Enlightenment thinking still drives science, I feel it manifests mostly in the idea that practical science should look for one-to-one correspondence between theory and observational results as an ideal. With QM shattering this ideal, I feel the actual practice of modern science is conducted with a mish-mash of implicit philosophical views, with positivism holding the biggest chunk of what drives methodologies and interpretations, while pragmatism carries the rest. (Everett's Many Worlds Interpretation, for example, could never have been considered science prior to the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM. Same is true for today's M-Theory). I think realism has had its day, and relativism seems the purview of philosophers and social scientists, not hard science.
Favorite Philosopher: Anaximander
User avatar
By Quotidian
#108328
Agreed. But it is not so much they wouldn't agree with the analogy of Plato's Cave, but they have no way of making sense of it, whereas Eastern philosophy does, because it can be seen (rightly or wrongly) as also being an analogy for their idea of moksha, spiritual enlightenment.

The difficulty for most scientifically-inclined thinkers is that science has unexpectedly opened up some rather mystical vistas. For 60's types, such as myself, this is all grist for the mill, and validates the interest we took in mystical spirituality. Those philosophies can provide a way of accommodating these ideas that is missing from the hardline empiricist views. It is significant that Schrodinger, for instance, had life-long interest in Schopenhauer, and also Vedanta. This is all documented in the much-criticized, but still influential, Tao of Physics by Frithjof Capra.

(I recently attended the Science and Non-Duality conference in San Rafael, which is overflowing with these kinds of ideas. Here is write-up of it in Huffington Post.)
Favorite Philosopher: Nagel Location: Sydney
By A Poster He or I
#108331
I have mixed feelings about the direct interaction of science with established spiritual ideologies, but I am nevertheless a holist myself (I prefer the term holism to non-duality) and I consider myself priveledged to be alive at a time where science has had to confront the limits of empiricism (thanks to both QM and complexity theory)and thereby implicate the epistemological status of science itself as needing to evolve.

I don't hold out any significant hope that science per se can ever again become self-consciously philosophical as it was in the era of Newton. What I imagine instead is that empirical science will eventually replace direct observation with a new paradigm of validation. I suspect the replacement to observation will be computation. Theoretical physics (M-theory) has already embraced computation in place of observation, and the entire discipline of complexity theory cannot exist without ever-increasing computational power. Complexity theorists already accept as a given that inherent unpredictability is the new norm for research, and this discipline works with "normal" macroscopic phenomena, not exotic subatomic particles.

It is no wonder that realism no longer commands scientific thinking and that pragmatism and positivism (and in the social sciences, relativism) should rise as epistemological frameworks for research. As computational power becomes more entrenched as the arbiter of valid science, I question whether science will find any need for spiritual (metaphysical) alliances. Pragmatism and positivism don't lend themselves readily to metaphysics.
Favorite Philosopher: Anaximander
User avatar
By Quotidian
#108332
Well, provided scientists don't try and *dictate* positivism, but regard it as a methodological requirement, I think it is OK. I don't much like 'positivism' when it is presented as a kind of acid bath for every other school of philosophy, as it has often been in the past. I was intensely hostile to A J Ayer when I was at university, before I realized that his kind of positivism was generally superseded, anyway. (Incidentally, have a look at this interesting essay on Ayer's Near-death experience.)

But overall, I see myself as obtaining to a much more traditionalist vision of the nature of philosophy, currently a kind of blend of Mahayana Buddhism and Christian Platonism, although constantly subject to revision.

And I've enjoyed your posts.:-)
Favorite Philosopher: Nagel Location: Sydney
By A Poster He or I
#108333
And I enjoy yours and Steve3007's. I'll check out the article.

I'm idly wondering whether your interest in the Mahayana tradition includes the Tiantai tradition of China. I became acquainted with Theravadan Buddhism in college but never could appreciate the evolution into Mahayana until I encountered Tiantai. It is the most out-and-out extreme form of relativism I have ever encountered in discourse, equating the Absolute with complete incoherence, but somehow it made my old Theravadan lessons make sense like never before.
Favorite Philosopher: Anaximander
User avatar
By Quotidian
#108335
I have the Lotus and Avatamsaka Sutras in translation, which I am going to get around to reading soon. They do have some very big ideas in them. I haven't studied Tiantai in detail, but I can't see how 'relativism' or 'incoherence' are descriptions of it. Maybe we could start a thread on it, in the Religions section? I am happy to do some research on it, I have just finished a Master's in Buddhist Studies.
Favorite Philosopher: Nagel Location: Sydney
By A Poster He or I
#108340
Ah! A Masters in Buddhist Studies beats my reading a couple of books on Tiantai supplementing my undergrad relligious studies from 30 years ago.

EDIT: Your remarks about Tiantai not connoting anything about relativism to you got me curious about whether I was remembering my own reading correctly. I looked up my own notes about the 2 books I previously mentioned. One of them was "Evil and/or/as the Good: Omnicentrism, Intersubjectivity, and Value Paradox in Tiantai Buddhist Thought" by Brook Ziporyn and it did indeed paint for me a picture of extreme relativism in its views on Tiantai. The other book was also by Ziporyn but it turns out it was not about Tiantai but a translation of Zhuangzi's writings. It is possible my remarks on incoherence are coming from Zhuangzi, so I have probably conflated the two books. If so, I apologize.
Favorite Philosopher: Anaximander
User avatar
By Quotidian
#108341
No apologies necessary. I found Brook Ziporyn - what a unique name - and even the brief reviews of that book on Amazon. It seems at first glance post-modernist to the point of being avante-garde. Fascinating - but, I don't think, a mainstream interpretation. Anyway we should stop hijacking the thread.

-- Updated November 15th, 2012, 6:40 pm to add the following --

Actually his Being and Ambiguity looks fascinating, I must say. Drat. Another book for the ever-growing list.
Favorite Philosopher: Nagel Location: Sydney
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 12

Current Philosophy Book of the Month

The Riddle of Alchemy

The Riddle of Alchemy
by Paul Kiritsis
January 2025

2025 Philosophy Books of the Month

On Spirits: The World Hidden Volume II

On Spirits: The World Hidden Volume II
by Dr. Joseph M. Feagan
April 2025

Escape to Paradise and Beyond (Tentative)

Escape to Paradise and Beyond (Tentative)
by Maitreya Dasa
March 2025

They Love You Until You Start Thinking for Yourself

They Love You Until You Start Thinking for Yourself
by Monica Omorodion Swaida
February 2025

The Riddle of Alchemy

The Riddle of Alchemy
by Paul Kiritsis
January 2025

2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Connecting the Dots: Ancient Wisdom, Modern Science

Connecting the Dots: Ancient Wisdom, Modern Science
by Lia Russ
December 2024

The Advent of Time: A Solution to the Problem of Evil...

The Advent of Time: A Solution to the Problem of Evil...
by Indignus Servus
November 2024

Reconceptualizing Mental Illness in the Digital Age

Reconceptualizing Mental Illness in the Digital Age
by Elliott B. Martin, Jr.
October 2024

Zen and the Art of Writing

Zen and the Art of Writing
by Ray Hodgson
September 2024

How is God Involved in Evolution?

How is God Involved in Evolution?
by Joe P. Provenzano, Ron D. Morgan, and Dan R. Provenzano
August 2024

Launchpad Republic: America's Entrepreneurial Edge and Why It Matters

Launchpad Republic: America's Entrepreneurial Edge and Why It Matters
by Howard Wolk
July 2024

Quest: Finding Freddie: Reflections from the Other Side

Quest: Finding Freddie: Reflections from the Other Side
by Thomas Richard Spradlin
June 2024

Neither Safe Nor Effective

Neither Safe Nor Effective
by Dr. Colleen Huber
May 2024

Now or Never

Now or Never
by Mary Wasche
April 2024

Meditations

Meditations
by Marcus Aurelius
March 2024

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

The In-Between: Life in the Micro

The In-Between: Life in the Micro
by Christian Espinosa
January 2024

2023 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021


My concern is simply rational. People differ fro[…]

The more I think about this though, many peopl[…]

Wow! This is a well-articulated write-up with prac[…]

@Gertie You are quite right I wont hate all […]