Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jun 29, 2018 - 12:32pm PT
|
The modern scientific method only deals with the physical material realm and subtle material realm.
The physical material realm and subtle material realm are the inferior incomplete manifestations of the whole.
Thus the physical material realm and subtle material realm are always incomplete and limited.
Thus the modern scienctific theories are NEVER ..... "As it Is" .......
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jun 29, 2018 - 12:37pm PT
|
Thus the physical material realm and subtle material realm are always incomplete and limited.
I'd agree with that, it is what it is...
...but there is more of it everyday.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Jun 30, 2018 - 08:01am PT
|
Ed:
I won’t devote much time to this, as I think it’s been gone over many times before.
Science is falsificationist. It does not prove theories. It eliminates inferior theories by testing one against another(s).
Kuhn basically said that different theories "re-read" data to come up with different interpretations or conclusions. New data and new methods by themselves alone do not (not historically, anyway) expose new understandings. The linchpin of the entire process of science was supposed to be about finding and interpreting empirical data. I’d say that's changed these days; now it’s all about theories which, are for the most part, not really put through the ringers of a straight-up comparison. (That puts the cart before the horse in my book.)
I do not think I need to know the ins and outs of particle physics in order to understand how the scientific process is supposed to work (at least as I was taught it in my programs).
Whether to is 45 BC, 1962, or 2018, the issues that make science difficult remain the same philosophically--a number of issues are always problematic in science. That they are not problematic to your mind doesn’t mean they are trivial. The list is long: e.g., validation, verification, variable construction, data-collection methods, testing methodologies, concerns about the use of statistics, etc.
For example, we tend to think that defining a population (of data) and a sample means that the averages will help us understand the category of the thing we are interested in. Regression to the mean. That's a view that's widely accepted imo. We throw out outliers because they ruin averages. However, that might be backwards. There are some rogue academics who think that the extraordinary observations help us to understand the category characteristics more than the averages do. Studying the most evil people on the planet, let's say, would tell us more about being socially evil than studying the so-called average. Extraordinary observations could be considered to be platonic forms. (I'll stop here; you get the idea I hope.)
Science is a project. So is democracy. So is capitalism. So is organized health care. You call these things (or at least their outcomes) “provisional,” and I agree. I'm glad to agree with you about this, because I see almost everything as provisional. I find it fun to play with ideas.
Last night I had a conversation with my wife about a psychological theory I’ve been reading about proffered by James Hillman. I tried to relate the idea to her, and she responded viscerally, claiming it was wrong, bad, socially egregious, personally offensive. It implied, she thought, certain things about her that she could not accept. I responded that, hey, it is just an idea, and as an idea there is nothing bad or evil about it. It’s just an idea, a theory, nothing to be taken all that seriously, something to play around with intellectually, . . . just a bunch of thoughts. What’s might be evil, politically incorrect, I offered, is what people do with an idea, that they might implement it in socially reprehensible ways. Oftentimes, simply because they took the ideas too concretely or seriously. As an ex-academic, I don't see ideas / concepts / theories that way. It's not something her mind could entertain, and she got pretty angry about the theory and my attitudes about ideas.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Jun 30, 2018 - 08:10am PT
|
We throw out outliers because they ruin averages.
Some do, some don't. I would not call those who don't rogues. I heard a professor in the U of Chicago medical school tell MD/PhD candidates that, if they did 100 tests and 99 came out as expected, to pay more attention to the one which didn't than to the 99 that did. The theme of the talk was serendipity. Ed gave a good example above.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jun 30, 2018 - 08:25am PT
|
MikeL,
I'll be shorter: I don't agree with your assessment. While Popper has been quite successful in describing science in a particular way, the logical coherence of any philosophical approach to describing the scientific process falls short of a complete description.
To say that theories today have not been "put through the ringer" is to be uninformed on what is going on in science.
Scientists are well aware of human bias and limitation, and incorporate strategies in their studies to try to minimize their effect on the science itself, and certainly attempt to quantify them.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Jun 30, 2018 - 10:38am PT
|
Ed: To say that theories today have not been "put through the ringer" is to be uninformed on what is going on in science.
I was in academia for about 35 years, Ed. It's possible that our perceptions are not the same, and I would suggest to you that they are not the same because we do not have the same invested commitments.
|
|
jogill
climber
Colorado
|
|
|
Jun 30, 2018 - 11:42am PT
|
"It's not something her mind could entertain, and she got pretty angry about the theory and my attitudes about ideas"
Sailor take warning . . .
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jun 30, 2018 - 11:53am PT
|
MikeL
aside from vague generalities, you haven't offered up much to support your criticisms
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
^^^^^^
We’re offering opinions here based upon experiences in the business, Ed.
What would you now like me to do? Provide citations of studies that have made the points that I’m relying on? You should know as well as I that although there are loose consensus in this or that field concerning this or that thing, that the academy is not of a single mind about anything. It’s the nature of systematic investigation that there arise different perspectives, different theories, and different approaches to what it truthful, truth, and reality (as well as beauty and the good). The point, I would think, is that one comes to see that somehow the very nature of reality is not fully, accurately, or finally describable. Certainly not materially, physically. There are far too many invisible things that we assume *daily,* almost every passing moment.
Like eeyonkee, I’d say that you too are married to a single conceptualized ideal. It limits what you can see.
Be well.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
There are far too many invisible things that we assume *daily,* almost every passing moment.
We are bathed in fields that not long ago would have more akin to spiritual ethers than to objects, yet they are apart of our understanding of a physical universe.
It is an aesthetic that I am committed to, though characterized by you and others as some blindered view of the world. The effect of blinders is to cutoff the view, but what do blinders do if there is no view to be blinded from?
I can readily see the appeal to a universe beyond the physical, a hopeful place free from the insults of the physical, where our spirits are unchained and meaningful.
It is more a wonder to me that all we need to understand is that which is around us, the spongy clay at our feet, though no escaping our condition, and no pity from the universe.
Those invisible things need not be invisible for ever, and slowly they become more visible. But perhaps Clarke was nearly right, having only missed the possibility that the civilizations he referred to could be one in the same.
Engage as you like, MikeL, but be aware of what you sow. Civil academic engagement through good-faith debate can be popularized in very perilous ways.
Think responsibly.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
Engage as you like, MikeL, but be aware of what you sow... academic engagement... can be popularized in very perilous ways... Think responsibly.
Good.
But you and a couple others here are his chief enablers.
In regard to this enabling... the enabling here in some respects is not THAT unlike the enabling we hear about in other problem areas: in drug abuse families, in eating disorder and dieting circles, in the #metoo movement.
"Oh that's just Harvey."
"Oh that's just..."
"Welcome back, MikeL!"
...
I've mentioned this before: 25 years ago, over a five year period or so, when I also studied a lot of history and linguistics and general history of philosophy, I was introduced to, and also intrigued by, post-modernism. Like creationism and various theologies, I gave it its due... aplenty. So, I thankfully recognize it when I see it; and no, I don't think I need to return to this confusing ideology to give its insidious ideas and doublespeak (that tends to paralyze/inactivate people) any more thought.
But maybe others should. Insofar as they have the time. Knowledge is power. Knowing better is doing better.
|
|
jogill
climber
Colorado
|
|
"But you and a couple others here are his chief enablers. In regard to this enabling... the enabling here in some respects is not THAT unlike the enabling we hear about in other problem areas"
Serious overreach here IMO. This thread is and should be about the presentation of differing perspectives. Let's not descend into confirmation bias.
Mike, I appreciate your contributions, especially when your views are not my own.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
"Serious overreach here..."
Well, for starters, I called it as I see it. Second, what we have here relentlessly, repetitiously (under encouragement), re the chopra-like woo and post-modernist overtones (if not the marrow itself) is akin to recycling through Christian theology (creationism to Original Sin and The Fall to Ascension) a thousand and one times. I for one would hope at some point folks could get beyond that and move on. It's for everyone to decide I guess how much they want to do whatever. No offense meant. Again, just callin em like I see em. Carry on. But make no mistake, imo, what goes on here and a million times over in other forums, etc on social media is not without its consequences.
https://youtu.be/oegZZ-XU81I?t=31m20s
Not THAT different, it seems to me, between there at Caltech and here at ST from my pov.
...
FWIW, I really don’t need to hear this or any of its conceptual or ideological equivalents 1000 times over and over...
"In the absence of a conscious entity, the moon remains a radically ambiguous and ceaselessly flowing quantum soup." -Chopra woo
(Said at Caltech, no less.)
https://youtu.be/oegZZ-XU81I?t=35m23s
|
|
jogill
climber
Colorado
|
|
^^^ And I appreciate your POVs as well.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 1, 2018 - 12:29pm PT
|
To say that theories today have not been "put through the ringer" is to be uninformed on what is going on in science.
Scientists are well aware of human bias and limitation, and incorporate strategies in their studies to try to minimize their effect on the science itself, and certainly attempt to quantify them.
-
I think a lot of the disagreement derives from the common sense ("folk") belief that those dedicated to a scientific view (theory, quantification, experiment, modeling, prediction, etc) have a privileged view not only of reality, but of science itself.
This seems to lead to the belief that limiting the investigation to puling measurements off external objects and forces is the only viable methodology of investigating reality, and in its extreme expression, that reality is and always will be known and understood ONLY by measuring those objects and forces.
To an outsider, that looks like a dude stuck in Plato's cave, who uses measurements FROM that cave to defend his position, then asking for cave measurements from those suggestion there is more - all else but cave measurements being "magic," delusions, or stuff "you only think you are experiencing."
Then we go into the exhaustive, circuitous, and fruitless search for physical evidence proving that cave measurements are the one and only. That's what I meant by "fluffing your own gizmo."
A few of us are saying, "Not so fast," but none of us are saying other methods of investigating reality are the one and only methods that produce viable (physical, to you) results. That's on you, Ed.
But the rub remains, and in it's most basic form it derives from the two-fold fact that experience is our most fundamental reality, the one thing all sane people know for sure that they "have," and the incontrovertible fact that no one can physically observe someone else's (or their own) experience.
What worm hole does this unwittingly lead us into? Few, I believe, realize it.
If you insist that reality itself is physical and only physical, then the mind that we experience is in and of itself, not real, since we cannot observe it directly. This leads to two dead ends.
A) If you go to where you CAN pull a measurement, you normally go to the brain you believe "creates" consciousness. Yes, we cannot yet describe in physical terms what consciousness is, nor describe exactly how it "emerges" or is produced or "output" by way of physical functions, but the only thing that's missing - according to this philosophical belief - is "more data" from future experiments.
Careful thinkers will realize this slippery slope, and the sump at the bottom.
B) No future experiments will ever be devised allowing Ed or anyone else will to directly observe Fruity's experience itself. People yell and say, "How can you know that?" For two simple reasons that are not debatable.
First, we can only observe external objects and forces like the brain. Second, if we COULD observe experience, that would mean that experience and physical reality are identical, that is, NO DIFFERENCE. That leads to the worm hole of Identity Theory, the impossibility of which has led nuanced thinkers to devise Information Theory, etc.
Few appreciate Nagel's wisdom in saying that questions about experience are not questions about causation. Physicalists disagree, and in fact espouse a method that excludes, by definition, the very phenomenon they seek to explain per physical descriptions of mind.
So any way you shake it, seeking a physical "explanation" for mind, by a method that excludes any trace of mind in the investigation, is not only logically incoherent, it inexorably leads to Identity Theory, where mind and matter are the very same.
Ironic thing is that this view overcomes duality, but in the wrong way - by trying to posit this (mechanical functioning) as existing as stand-alone things independent of that (mind). Another view says there are no stand alone things or forces, though we can provisionally describe things that way in order to make our way in the world.
|
|
goatboy smellz
climber
Gulf Breeze
|
|
jogill
climber
Colorado
Let's not descend into confirmation bias.
Too late, bias all the way down in this thread mascardaing as objective theories.
Jung mentioned these presumptions would always bite the biggest blowhards in the ass, looks like he was right.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
HFCS -- "I called it as I see it." " Again, just callin em like I see em."
You're spiritually completely blind.
So you can't see sh!t about what you're trying to say.
You're a complete fool and completely blind to anything beyond your own limited little senses ......
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
Jung knew a thing or two,
Because he knew a thing or two he thought he knew it all,
Some say he was an also ran,
|
|
jogill
climber
Colorado
|
|
JL: "Then we go into the exhaustive, circuitous, and fruitless search for physical evidence proving that cave measurements are the one and only. That's what I meant by 'fluffing your own gizmo'."
Intimate measurements inside a cave might be more accurate with a flashlight and ruler. But whatever starts your engine.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!