Post by Bruno MarchalPost by JAGPost by Bruno MarchalYes. But I think this might be our consciousness here and now. All
other conscious content can be doubted.
But I do agree that elementary arithmetic is almost not doubtable,
although, strictly speaking, it can.
OK. (To be sure I don't believe in "philosophy of science", except
conventionally for the curriculum. Either we tackle problems with a
scientific attitude, or we don't).
Bruno
yes, but don't forget that tackling problems with a scientifc
attitude is also the goal;
OK.
Post by JAGsometimes we do take things for granted
And the problems arrive. Better never take anything for granted,
especially in public discourse.
to my view, and according to my philosophy, method and cosmology/theology, there are NO problems; there are only challenges!
But then, yes, there are problematic approaches and problematic individuals....
Furthermore, I think that behind each and every problem lies a solution, it has too, and it's just a matter of time and manner/method to solve it. (otherwise it is just an oxymoron, and not a 'problem') ;)
Post by Bruno MarchalPost by JAGand we beleive that we do deal with problems with the appropriate
attitude and method, but that is not always the case, and that is
To make sure that we are in line with a truly 'scientific' attitude
and at the same to point out various problems and implications.
But it is not difficult, except for the people who believes that they
know the truth.
Faking confidence might still be a social game, probably due to our
long biological evolution, but I think we can learn to put the
interrogation marks and become more and more aware ... of our basic
ignorance, and become aware of the hypothetical nature of all our
public theories.
And that's concerns also philosophy of science. It should be a branch
of science too. Science is mainly doubts make clear and public. It
needs courage only.
Courage, indeed, in-deed! ;)
"How much truth does a spirit endure, how much truth does it dare?
More and more that become for me the real measure of value. Error...is not blindness, error is cowardice."
-Friedrich Nietzsche, Ecce Homo
Post by Bruno MarchalPost by JAGFurthermore, i will argue that Philosophy of Science is about
'testing' and even discovering more appropriate=valid attitudes
towards that goal.
Yes, but not in any normative way. A philosopher of science should not
try to tell a scientist how to do science. That would be like a
zoologist trying to tell a centipede how to walk.
no, but it's about being "complementary" -trying to see the 'whole', even from different/opposing points of view and perspectives;
Any scientific/philosophical iquiry is nothing else, at least, than a testing of the *reality* in question, and all available means/methods should be employed....
Post by Bruno MarchalPost by JAGNow, the next logical question is how scientifc attitude deals with
*meaning* and what aspects should be included, both to have a
functional scientific approach and then DEFINE what a scientific
approach is and/or should be all about!
Is *meaning*(and asking *why*) outside the scope and method of
Science?
If by "meaning" you mean something like the "meaning of life", I think
that, assuming the comp theory, we can show that it is not part of
science, but something private. But in some other theory things can be
different.
If by "meaning" you mean semantic, then a lot of procedure can be
described and be amenable to public studies, like the denotational
semantics of Scott for attributing semantic to computer program, or
model theory (a branch of mathematical logic) to study the semantic of
formal mathematical theories, or the attempt by Montague to build
semantics for large part of "natural languages".
Post by JAGor is it that we haven't developed, yet, a truly scientific method
good enough to include aspects that were so far excluded/'prohibited'?
There is no prohibition in science, just fashion, and bad habits, and
concerning some domain, we can only hope and wait that people get less
emotional. Such domain are often in the hand of people who makes money
with lies, and who exploits the reasonable fear that we, the animals,
can have toward basic fundamental things, like life, death,
values.
This leads to give authority to other people, and, despite it has been
a useful natural strategy, it is embarrassing for the long term.
Computer science can be used to explain that all ideally
arithmetically correct machines, get conflicting view about themselves
when looking inward, and this makes them intrinsically unsatisfied
most of the time. That kind of discovery might help to accept that
once alive we face problems, and are ignorant, and makes us modest,
trying to be less wrong and to reduce the harms, instead of defending
naive idea about truth and false.
Very true and correct. But I was talking about 'prohibitions' in Popperian terms, where more 'prohibitions' in a theory could result in making the theory 'stronger'; and it is partly correct and true true but then we have to question the nature and validity of those prohibitions themeselvs. ;)
I guess that is exactly where we had some disagreement with Alan earlier, and so far i have not heard any good 'explanation', why Popper, and DD for that matter, reject *justifications*?
Post by Bruno MarchalPost by JAGwhat is the true nature of this problem?
The many conflicts between the cortex, the limbic system, the cerebral
stem, the left hemisphere, the right hemisphere, in each of us, and
then the many conflicts with the colleagues, the boss, the employees,
etc.
indeed but what about cause and effect?
check this out:
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0052970
i think it would be wise to reflect for a while, and ponder about causes and effects here, about how various Developments and processes take place (brain wiring/functioning, cognitive etc.) about the effects and affects of socialization and conditioning, and see both the relativity and potentiallity...in all those processes themselves, and how they are influenced, and then could be modified in return, by our ideas, values and beliefs...and philosophies and methods...
thus, we DO need to be aware of all variables and processes of our epistemology, but then somehow ESCAPE ourselves from the very same -and then come back, of course, to balance things out...to find objectivity by subjective means...
I think that is exactly where and what multi-disciplinary studies attempt to do...
so, here are some interesting findings about brain functioning, again, from a different perspective and approach:
http://www.journalsleep.org/ViewAbstract.aspx?pid=28569
"We are such stuff
As dreams are made on,
and our little life
Is rounded with sleep."
-Shakespeare, The Tempest
Post by Bruno MarchalAbout numbers, machines, and a fortiori the humans, there are no
simple solutions.
Post by JAGwhat is exactly the goal here?
Science can study its limitation, and recognize that some things are
beyond its method. Like "truth". Science, or fundamental science can
be said to be the best tool in the quest of truth, but it is also the
worst one when trying to define it.
The goal is multiple. But for fundamental science we can say it is the
quest of truth, keeping in mind that we can only hope for being less
wrong, at least in some "theory". meanwhile we can try to be just as
clear as possible to make higher the probability of being shown false.
This is in line with David.
yes, exactly....thus, the need for self-reflection and contemplation, and 'arguing', and then for comparison of findings with like-minded individuals, that is, with open-minded and creative individuals ;)
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity,
and I'm not sure about the former." -Albert Einstein
and speaking about contemplation here is another interesting study:
http://www.frontiersin.org/Human_Neuroscience/10.3389/fnhum.2012.00292/abstract
I would argue that MINDFUL Meditation is the best medication, and one of the best ways to avoid Prozac and the like, and also one of the best ways to join in and log in to the Divine and the Universal ;)
Many societes have consciously chosen to maintain and preserve certain and such practices to evolve further and higher, not necessarily on the materialistic/technological plane of existence, but that of the mind and spirit, with great success, with different epistemological modes but very similar results, and by no means they could be considered static... ;)
http://www.integralscience.org/einsteinbuddha/
http://quark.phy.bnl.gov/~pisarski/talks/Colloquia/Lopez.pdf
once we learn how to join in the Universal then there is no need for other defenses -that could make us miserable and even intoxicate further our consciousness and epistemic process:
http://www.ar.cc.mn.us/biederman/courses/p1115/Defense%20Mechanisms%20Handout.pdf
Post by Bruno MarchalPost by JAG"Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set
of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the
equations and makes a universe for them to describe? The usual
approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot
answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model
to describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother of
existing?"Stephen W. Hawking
Why indeed? But did some Universe bother to "really" exist? Or are
they just appearance in number's dreams?
On that question, (why there is something instead of nothing) I can
argue that, assuming computationalism, arithmetic provides the best
solution we can hope for.
really? ok but then 'truth' can also take many forms
http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2013/02/do-we-live-inside-a-mathematical.html
http://aaas.confex.com/aaas/2013/webprogram/Session5800.html
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/315/5814/966.abstract
"Nature is a language and every new fact one learns is a new word;
but it is not a language taken to pieces and dead in the dictionary,
but the language put together into a most significant and universal sense. I wish to learn this language, not that I may know a new grammar, but that I may read the great book that is written in that tongue." -Emerson
Post by Bruno MarchalIt explains why we cannot understand why we
believe in arithmetic without assuming arithmetic at the start, and
then it explains why universes becomes apparent, stable, and having
communicable sharable parts (quanta) and non communicable parts
(qualia). And if you add the classical theory of "knowledge", the way
the universe(s) arise becomes testable/refutable.
The numbers remains mysterious, but the fact that "the numbers remain
mysterious" can be entirely explained (again, in that theory).
that's what am talking about...and what Philospophy of Science is all about=to understand the processes involved and then to produce methods...creative and productive methods...
Bruno, i think that regardless your 'scientifc' background and opening statement above (about 'disbelief' in Philosophy of Science), i would say you are rather a 'natural' Philosopher of Science yourself ;)
Post by Bruno MarchalPost by JAG"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not
certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to
reality." -Albert Einstein
Absolutely so, and even provably so for the ideally correct machine,
in their "toy theology".
http://www.kurzweilai.net/preserving-the-self-for-later-emulation-what-brain-features-do-we-need
"Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
"True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing.
And in knowing that you know nothing,
that makes you the smartest of all.
As for me, all I know is that I know nothing."
-Socrates
JAG