Mmmm. Ok, what about trying to explain nature in natural terms instead of religious terms? Philosohpy, 700 BC. The greek miracle.
Replacing bat guano answer A with bat guano answer B and refusing to admit you're wrong in either case doesn't help much.
Its not like the pro religious side wasn't using philosophy either.
What about the problem of understanding how a mind can have perception of the world - Leibniz, leaded him to infinetesimal calculus.
The same person did both. Leibniz was involved in a lot of diverse fields. Can you explain what the connection is between his theory of the mind and calculus?
What about philsophical though experiments of modern philosophy (Descartes, Leibniz) about time and space - influenced Newton, and Einstein later. Leading to modern physics.
Its a little tenuous, and wouldn't go anywhere without actual experiments.
What about formal logic? You know, the principles behind computer sciences? Philosophy, around 1900.
The xor or and gates are pretty simple. (just like anything in philosophy, incredibly hard to prove.)
What about the problem or relation between sytax and semantic? Philosophy, around 1950-1970. Huge advances in AI research.
I'd have to ask an AI researcher. The problem is given your willingness to credit philosophy with any given thought I'm skeptical of your claims of involvement.
What about modal logic and possible world ontology - still going on - now seriously considered to be one of the best explanation of quantum physics and leading to new way to understand the Big Bang? Still philosophy - Saul Kripke and David Lewis.
What breakthroughs in physics were made thanks to it? It seems that philosophy is putting out as many crazy ideas as it can, and whenever physics lands there philosophy is saying "hey, i was here first"
I mean, it just shows, no disrespect intended, you lack the historical knowledge to see what good stuff philosophers did.
Or some really tenuous connections between what went on and an overly broad definition of philosophy.
Maybe is because i am not a native english speaker but "widely" imply to me more than a half of the population ¬¬ .
Anyways, why to thin that Bhor interpretation is locicaly wrong?
I talked about Heiseinberg's interpretation which is not exactly the same as Bhor's. But lets be more general and talk about the Copenhagen Interpretation.
The awnser is long, but here you'll find a good read to get you started : http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-copenhagen/
Basically, the interpretation was seen as positing a context-dependant verificator for making sense of quantum complementary descriptions, meaning the "observer" could not be himself a physical object, because you had to posit a "mind" outside the context for the theory not to be epistemically relativist.
Realists philosophers reminded physicists that this kantian slip had the ontological implication of placing something like a 'mind' outside the field of physics.
If you are an idealist or a kantian, that was good news, but not so for realist philosophers who want to strongly conscribe empirical truth to the scientific method.
Thus, The many worlds theory was born, partly, to find a non kantian way of making sense quantum of double descriptions.
The same person did both. Leibniz was involved in a lot of diverse fields. Can you explain what the connection is between his theory of the mind and calculus?
Me? I could if I had the time. I don't. But there is a lot of papers floating around the internet on that subject.
You'll need to research Hobbes's conception of conatus, contrast it with Descartes's and possibly Spinoza's and then see how this problem led Leibniz to differential calculus.
It would take more time than I have to establish this historical thesis. But hey, As I said, look around the internet: http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/perspectives_on_science/v006/6.1jesseph.html
Now, just read about the conatus :http://www.mendeley.com/research/conatus-hobbes-and-the-young-leibniz/
And you pretty much have it.
I'd have to ask an AI researcher. The problem is given your willingness to credit philosophy with any given thought I'm skeptical of your claims of involvement.
Please, do ask! Now you are getting there - do some research. I'm pretty confident you'll find what I say to be true, so that is really not a problem!
Now, just read about the conatus :http://www.mendeley.com/research/conatus-hobbes-and-the-young-leibniz/
This makes it sound like Leibniz was fighting with the philosophers rather than being assisted to his conclussions by philosophy.
He did get the idea in Hobbes, but Hobbes dabbled in physics. The problem is that Hobbes decided that the physical experiments were crass
Hobbes's first area of study was an interest in the physical doctrine of motion and physical momentum. Despite his interest in this phenomenon, he disdained experimental work as in physics. He went on to conceive the system of thought to the elaboration of which he would devote his life- wiki
If Hobbes had been willing to roll up his sleeves and do the hard part of science we might be telling stories of him being hit in the head with an apple. Hobbes was playing around with Ideas of momentum (conatas?). That seems to have been one of the things than inspired Lebowitz - amoung a vast many others, especially galileo's work.
This makes it sound like Leibniz was fighting with the philosophers rather than being assisted to his conclussions by philosophy.He did get the idea in Hobbes, but Hobbes dabbled in physics. The problem is that Hobbes decided that the physical experiments were crass
Hobbes's first area of study was an interest in the physical doctrine of motion and physical momentum. Despite his interest in this phenomenon, he disdained experimental work as in physics. He went on to conceive the system of thought to the elaboration of which he would devote his life- wiki
If Hobbes had been willing to roll up his sleeves and do the hard part of science we might be telling stories of him being hit in the head with an apple. Hobbes was playing around with Ideas of momentum (conatas?). That seems to have been one of the things than inspired Lebowitz - amoung a vast many others, especially galileo's work.
Hobbes created the notion of conatus first to solve the mind-body problem. This concept, and this discussion in the philosophy of mind field, lead to Leibniz's invention of differential calculus, when he tried to solve the problem of the natural mouvement of a body using maths in order to proove free will.
So now that the link between a philsophical problem and a mathematical discovery is clearly showed to you (it's what you asked for) what do you do?
You also need Hobbes to be Newton? What he did was not enough?
And yes, Galileo's work is also important.
I never said EVERY good idea came from philosophy. Scientists have had as much an influence on philosophers. I only said some very good ideas came from philosophers that lead scientists to new discoveries.
Serioulsy man.
You ask me to show connections between philosophicals problems and scientific advances. I did.
Now, you bash the philosophers for not being scientists themselves? That's your anwser? If he was a true man, he would had be willing to roll up his sleeves and get dirty? Because, you know, Hobbes, really, was a pussy, because he did not get in the lab!
That is just... wathever man. Seems you don't have any arguments left to defend your thesis.
Now, ok, lets play this game the other way.
Please, prove me, like I did, with serious references from encyclopedias, scientific papers, historical analysis that philosophy had no influence whatsoever on any major scientific discovery.
Let's see if you can proove it. After all, I obliged you and I backed my claims. Can you back yours?
Hobbes created the notion of conatus first to solve the mind-body problem.
Fill in the blank for me. Mind/Body problem---->?????-----> Momentum.
So now that the link between a philsophical problem and a mathematical discovery is clearly showed to you (it's what you asked for) what do you do?
The link isn't clear its very tenuous. I think there are better relations between alchemy and physics (its why indigo is considered a color on the spectrum for example). Leibniz was working on intervals anyway and i can't for the life of me figure out
You ask me to show connections between philosophicals problems and scientific advances. I did.
I appreciate that you at least accept that providing evidence is the way to make the point. I just don't think your evidence supports you as clearly as you would like.
Now, you bash the philosophers for not being scientists themselves?
Well its less of a now and more of an always thing with me...
Because, you know, Hobbes, really, was a pussy, because he did not get in the lab!
Its not a matter of manliness its a matter of arrogance.
Thinking you can figure out the universe just by thinking about it takes some serious cajhones, or a belief in philosophy that qualifies as faith. The universe is bizarre and complicated. Is there any way to KNOW how objects are going to interact with each other without testing it out?
Is there any purpose for reducing fact to a null set? Insisting that we don't know anything? Requiring bizarre language constructs just to be technically correct?
I don't think that knowing philosophy is necessary for figuring out how quarks interact. I do know that physics is. Without some concrete reasoning behind why people need philosophers I can't see any reason for them. Its nice that philosophers have gone over complex ideas before but I'm really not seeing a causal link between anything they've done and
Let's see if you can proove it. After all, I obliged you and I backed my claims. Can you back yours?
You know "proving" negatives is a pain.
http://web.mit.edu/physics/current/undergrad/major.html
While you CAN take a philosophy of science focus the classes don't seem to be necessary. My experience with education has convinced me that its ridiculously easy for something to get slapped in as a required class (i can't figure out why on earth i needed two semesters of physics for a Forestry/biology degree. Trees aren't known for their magnetic fields) So if philosophy is as influential as you think why isn't it a requirement?
Fill in the blank for me. Mind/Body problem---->?????-----> Momentum.The link isn't clear its very tenuous. I think there are better relations between alchemy and physics (its why indigo is considered a color on the spectrum for example). Leibniz was working on intervals anyway and i can't for the life of me figure out
I appreciate that you at least accept that providing evidence is the way to make the point. I just don't think your evidence supports you as clearly as you would like.
Which only shows you did not read the links I provided. There you have a bunch of serious papers establishing exactly that there is a clear and strong link.
Maybe you could tell me exactly what you did not understand in the papers, by giving references, so that I may help you undertsand the "tenuous link"?
Again, I provide you with serious research, you only glance at them, do not take the time required to work out the proof, and claim they have no value.
Way to go for someone who think philosophy is stupid because it offers no proofs. When showed one, you don't even try to understand it. I wonder how that attitude would work out in science...
Its not a matter of manliness its a matter of arrogance.Thinking you can figure out the universe just by thinking about it takes some serious cajhones, or a belief in philosophy that qualifies as faith. The universe is bizarre and complicated. Is there any way to KNOW how objects are going to interact with each other without testing it out?
Is there any purpose for reducing fact to a null set? Insisting that we don't know anything? Requiring bizarre language constructs just to be technically correct?
I don't think that knowing philosophy is necessary for figuring out how quarks interact. I do know that physics is. Without some concrete reasoning behind why people need philosophers I can't see any reason for them. Its nice that philosophers have gone over complex ideas before but I'm really not seeing a causal link between anything they've done and
I never said philosophy was necessary for understanding the interaction of particles physics. I showed you precises problems, with precises results. I gave you links to back up those claims. Differential calculus, mereology, many worlds theory, etc.
I certainly never claimed philosophy was required for understanding everything scientific. I showed perticuliar cases where it was.
I agree with you you can't understand the universe only by thinking about it and that you need science to do that. My claim was much mure humble. Philosophy is not in itself a sufficent condition, but it is a necessary condition, along with science.
I find it arrogant when scientists claims that science is the only (necessary AND sufficient) condition required for understanding reality. This claim is WAY stronger that the one I made and get rid of logic, ontology and pure mathematics as requirement for thinking. If that is not arrogance!
Most philosophers working in the field of science are tackling small, circumscribed problems. Not every scientist is Einstein. Not every philosopher is claiming to be Leibniz or Russell.
In case you don't know the distinction between a necessary and sufficient condition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessary_and_sufficient_condition
You know "proving" negatives is a pain.
http://web.mit.edu/physics/current/undergrad/major.html
Yes, it's a pain. But it's your claim, not mine. It will be difficult to establish (and more so because it is not true, so good luck with that) and that's exactly my point.
Are you ready do do serious work, or are you just making a bold and unfunded claim?
While you CAN take a philosophy of science focus the classes don't seem to be necessary. My experience with education has convinced me that its ridiculously easy for something to get slapped in as a required class (i can't figure out why on earth i needed two semesters of physics for a Forestry/biology degree. Trees aren't known for their magnetic fields) So if philosophy is as influential as you think why isn't it a requirement?
I agree with you. Philosophy is not required to have a job. As I said again and again, it gets important when you do fundemental research. Don't take a philosophy of science class if you are only interrested in practical things.
Dont bash those who want to do something else, and aim for a more theoritical understanding of the universe. It's not your bag of tea, I got that, but the fact you don't like philosophy have nothing to do with the value of philosophy.
And you really believe academia principal aim is for the theoritical science? Really, man, school is for the majority of students a way to find a job. Philosophy is certainly not required to work in your field. It has been very influential on the very very small part of population who are doing fundamental research.
Meaning you don't see the link between philosophy and science at school before graduate studies and research groups.
Like those : http://www.cs.ox.ac.uk/activities/ieg/
http://www.ppls.ed.ac.uk/philosophy/groups/mind-cognition-edinburgh
http://www.port.ac.uk/research/csseresearchgroup/philosophy/
http://www2.lse.ac.uk/CPNSS/projects/PhilosophyofPhysics.aspx
http://www.pse-esf.org/programma_systems_biology.pdf
Senior Software Developer
|
I was kidding about the drunk philosopher fistfight stuff (though that is going to be my next band name). But this thread could use a little less grar. It's just words on the internet people, you don't have to get all feisty because someone's dissing your profession or favorite historical figures or whatever.
*blink*
*blink*
Does Mrs. OmegaZero know you have an avatar with this name? What does she think of that?
I can not see That "link" so clearly, i have to accept that i have not dedicate the enough time to read about it, but for what i saw, if that link exist is fuzzy and indirect at best.
Maybe the weekend i can read more seriously about lebiniz-min/body-calculus issue.
I am esceptic, i do not believe that Philosophy lead to ser¡ious advance in science (at least the definition of philosophy that i think BigNorseWolf and I share), but this topic is interesting, I sincerily hope that this trhead can continue without personal issues.
I dont like quoting wikipedia, but the article on conatus, showing the root in philosophy and the link to differential calculus is quite eloquent, for once : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conatus#In_Leibniz
I was kidding about the drunk philosopher fistfight stuff (though that is going to be my next band name). But this thread could use a little less grar. It's just words on the internet people, you don't have to get all feisty because someone's dissing your profession or favorite historical figures or whatever.
Words of wisdom.
Sorry for my somewhat bad temper, but it's difficult not to get upset when someone is trashing all your work, and the work of your co-workers for no good reason.
Which only shows you did not read the links I provided. There you have a bunch of serious papers establishing exactly that there is a clear and strong link.
I read one, the other isn't accessible without a journal subscription.
Maybe you could tell me exactly what you did not understand in the papers, by giving references, so that I may help you undertsand the "tenuous link"?
Fill in the blank for me. Mind/Body problem---->?????-----> Momentum.
I told you exactly what I didn't understand and got ridiculed.
The mind-body problem is a philosophical problem arising in the fields of metaphysics and philosophy of mind. The problem arises because of the fact that mental phenomena appear to be qualitatively and substantially different from the physical bodies on which they appear to depend.------> ??? -----> having distance over time for a zero time.
Again, I provide you with serious research, you only glance at them, do not take the time required to work out the proof, and claim they have no value.
Perhaps you could quote from the articles to make your point specifically and surgically rather than carpet bombing, pointing to the explosion and saying "its in there somewhere"
Way to go for someone who think philosophy is stupid because it offers no proofs. When showed one, you don't even try to understand it. I wonder how that attitude would work out in science...
Right. I didn't try. Its completely impossible to disagree with you, or not not understand your point, or to miss the one line in 5 pages of philosobable you think should have leaped out at me.
I never said philosophy was necessary for understanding the interaction of particles physics. I showed you precises problems, with precises results. I gave you links to back up those claims. Differential calculus, mereology, many worlds theory, etc.
If the alleged contribution of philosophy is to solve these problems, but these problems can be solved without philosophy.. then what exactly is philosophy doing?
I never said philosophy was necessary for understanding the interaction of particles physics.
vs
Philosophy is not in itself a sufficent condition, but it is a necessary condition, along with science.
Do you see a bit of a contradiction there?
I agree with you. Philosophy is not required to have a job. As I said again and again, it gets important when you do fundemental research. Don't take a philosophy of science class if you are only interrested in practical things.
Those people ARE going to be doing fundamental research. That's why i picked them.
Dont bash those who want to do something else, and aim for a more theoretical understanding of the universe. It's not your bag of tea, I got that, but the fact you don't like philosophy have nothing to do with the value of philosophy.
Perhaps if philosophy would cease from stating that science doesn't know anything, there are no facts, and implying that science is useless because it will never let us know anything I would. That to me is bashing science and denigrating the hard work that goes into the facts that science gathers by observation, careful extrapolation and constant testing.
I dislike separating the theory and practice of science. In theory we have to launch into some long convoluted diatribe before saying ANYTHING when in practice we know what happened.
Try taking Evil Lincoln's statement about why dogs have floppy ears and make it philosophically correct.
To both Nicos and BNG :
Ok, lets try again. I hope you do understand I'm not an expert on Leibniz. I had some class as un undergraduate and read some things bout his ontology later when I was interrested in process ontology were he is still very influential, but it is not my expertise.
So, here we go - I'll try to explain something very complex in a few lines. Take it for what it is, a brief introduction you will need to complete with more readings.
Mind/body problem -> Hobbes's Conatus as a solution to the mind body problem -> Leibniz's reception of Hobbes's notion of Conatus -> Leibniz reworking Hobbe's conatus and devising differential calculus and integral calculus in order to explain it more clearly, and establising the properties of mind and body:
Body - Motion - differential calculus
Mind - Perception - Integral calculus
The integral calculus was devised by Leibniz in order to explain how "petites perceptions" (meaning what we would today call subliminal perceptions) could give rise to counscious perceptions by integration.
For Leibniz, mind, by way of integration, was explaining the cohesive part of reality. Matter, because of it's differential properties, was opposed to mind as what we would could call decohesive force. He saw reality as requiring both - an infinitely divisable matter in space, and a cohesive, integrative force in mind. That is why he came whith is concept of Monads. Think of a monad as being the smallest common denominator of mind AND matter. A material point in motion , and a mind point in perception. He was trying to bridge Descarte's dualism that way, and his mathematical inventions were done in order to explain his metaphysical take on reality.
QED - Leibniz's mathematical innovations were done in order to correct what he saw as flaws in Hobbes's and Descartes's ontologies.
I never said philosophy was necessary for understanding the interaction of particles physics.
vs
Philosophy is not in itself a sufficent condition, but it is a necessary condition, along with science.
Do you see a bit of a contradiction there?
No. There are some parts of science you can understand and apply just fine withouth philosophy, but in some cases (some of which I pointed out), it is necessary to do philosophy in order to test and improve the theoritical parts of scientific theories. Please refrain from getting sentences out of context and sticking them together in order to create false contraditions.
Also :
Perhaps if philosophy would cease from stating that science doesn't know anything, there are no facts, and implying that science is useless because it will never let us know anything I would. That to me is bashing science and denigrating the hard work that goes into the facts that science gathers by observation, careful extrapolation and constant testing.
VS
I agree with you you can't understand the universe only by thinking about it and that you need science to do that. My claim was much mure humble. Philosophy is not in itself a sufficent condition, but it is a necessary condition, along with science.
Can you see you are attacking me for a position I do not hold? And a position very, very few philosophers hold? In fact, I don't know one philosopher who hold the position that science is useless and does not know anything. This is pure myth.
And what do you think about those links I gave you?
http://www.cs.ox.ac.uk/activities/ieg/
http://www.ppls.ed.ac.uk/philosophy/groups/mind-cognition-edinburgh
http://www.port.ac.uk/research/csseresearchgroup/philosophy/
http://www2.lse.ac.uk/CPNSS/projects/PhilosophyofPhysics.aspx
http://www.pse-esf.org/programma_systems_biology.pdf
They are some example of current research groups where philosophers and scientist are working hand in hand. Surely, if philosophy was so useless, no scientist would join those groups, no?
As for the "philobable" thing - yes, there is a technical language involved in philosophy, as there is one in science. You have to learn it, like you have to learn the "technobable" of science in order to do science.
The integral calculus was devised by Leibniz in order to explain how "petites perceptions" (meaning what we would today call subliminal perceptions) could give rise to counscious perceptions by integration.
.... an epic level ranger couldn't track that thought process. That's one possible explanation, or he could have gotten it from his own work in math, or from Newton, or from Galileo. Having come up with the idea mathematically he had to defend it philosophically.. and couldn't.
...I never said philosophy was necessary for understanding the interaction of particles physics.
vs
Philosophy is not in itself a sufficent condition, but it is a
No. There are some parts of science you can understand and apply just fine withouth philosophy, but in some cases (some of which I pointed out), it is necessary to do philosophy in order to test and improve the theoritical parts of scientific theories. Please refrain from getting sentences out of context and sticking them together in order to create false contraditions.
So what kind of science requires philosophy classes? Is there a distinction between particle physics and quantum physics?
I think the problem here is that you consider just about any form of thinking to be philosophy.
Can you see you are attacking me for a position I do not hold?
Nope.
Evolution is a theory, not a fact. It's a really sound theory explaining a lot of facts, like relativity is, but it's still a theoritical construct explaining facts, and not a fact in itself.
This is like saying that Columbus's arrival in the America's is a theory explaining why we have his diary and why there's a bunch of white people running around the north American continent today and why they're speaking Spanish in south America.
Evolution theory changed a lot between Lamark, Darwin and modern genetics - would you say it was always a fact? In what sense? Which fact? A great big fact called evolution? It is not possible to observe or experience this.
Your idea that the only things we can call facts are those which are observed undercuts the entire point of science. The entire point of science is that the universe works according to certain rules. Those rules are just as factual, real, and discernible as direct
observations.Like i said, if i had a time machine after I went back and shot Hitler I'd hang out for a bit to beat Popper with a Stick
I'd probably use padding.
A little.
And what do you think about those links I gave you?
http://www.cs.ox.ac.uk/activities/ieg/
-I'm not a computer scientist. I can barely get visual basic to work. I have no way of evaluating philosophies contribution and its been a while since I could walk across the quad and ask one. (or bang on the wall and ask one)
http://www.ppls.ed.ac.uk/philosophy/groups/mind-cognition-edinburgh
They deal with psychologists. How good could they be... ")
http://www2.lse.ac.uk/CPNSS/projects/PhilosophyofPhysics.aspx
If they were using philosophy to answer questions in physics rather than using physics to bring up (and answer?) questions in philosophy I'd be impressed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation
this is the many universes hypothesis right?
Philosophy of Contemporary Science in Practice (PCSP)
Its interesting.. they're studying... science "itself" ? I'm not sure is that should be philosophy or anthropology...
.... an epic level ranger couldn't track that thought process. That's one possible explanation, or he could have gotten it from his own work in math, or from Newton, or from Galileo. Having come up with the idea mathematically he had to defend it philosophically.. and couldn't.
No. You can't track it. Read Leibniz. He wrote it himself. Directly. In his books. With his own hand.
But, you know what, I knew it even before posting my awnser what your reaction would be. I said to myself "hey, it will be interresting to see how he'll twist that one in order to refuse a direct proof"
And I must say, it's a little... Lets's say that when you are negating well establised facts about history, facts backed up by all historians of science working on those problems, and facts you can find a copy of at your library by reading Leibniz, well... it's not just critical thinking anymore, it's delusion.
Evolution is a theory, not a fact. It's a really sound theory explaining a lot of facts, like relativity is, but it's still a theoritical construct explaining facts, and not a fact in itself.This is like saying that Columbus's arrival in the America's is a theory explaining why we have his diary and why there's a bunch of white people running around the north American continent today and why they're speaking Spanish in south America.
Seems we are both right, and both wrong on this one : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact
I was trying to explain the theory part, you were trying to explain the fact part. Good enough?
Is there a distinction between particle physics and quantum physics?
Yes, there is a difference between quantum physics and particle theory. The first is much broader than the second.
But explaining that to someone who is supposed to understand science better than me seems the perfect example of a major waste of time.
And you are probably right. Researchs groups of major universities like Oxford, where philosophers and scientists are working together are probably something to sneer at.
Because, you just know better than those guy, righ?
She points out hot women to me. Like the one at DragonCon dressed as the Witchblade, whose costume was nothing but bodypaint, pasties, and a thong.
Mrs. Gersen always says, "You can window shop without buying anything."
Seems we are both right, and both wrong on this one : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact
I was trying to explain the theory part, you were trying to explain the fact part. Good enough?
Or you could both have simply read my post on that subject... but that would have required you to stop comparing the size of your appendages for a moment ;D
No Kirth, I did read your post. That is why, at page 4 of the discussion, I made this point:
1) Evolution is a theoritical construct about a set of established facts and able to make predictive claims about similar facts.
2) Evolution is a biological process still taking place today.1 is a theory.
2 is a fact. This fact is a "big fact" outside the scope of practical verification. It can't be tested, not because it is not a fact (de jure), but because we lack the mean to observe evolution due to time constraint (de facto). Lets call this big fact a "derived" fact.
As for my appendage, Come on, a Mongoose and a Wolf? I'm at a disavantage here ;-)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Philosophers make the point that everything is stupid.
Really?
The universal statement there is - ALL philosopher make the point that everything is stupid.
Hate to toss down the troll card, but it has to be done. Not much of a discussion to be had about this, I think you've made your point clear - you don't like philosophy, philosophers, and you think there's no value in either.
Obviously it's not a point that you can prove, and no one can make you change your mind so your motivation is what.... to get a rise out of people?
Might be time to let this one die.
In my opinion, Philosophy is the art of trying to convince others that the things you are harboring in your head have some similarities to the things they harbor in theirs.
I have always been delighted by Alan Watts in his comment, “Philosophers are men at universities who would walk around in long white coats, if they thought they could get away with it.”
Nice quote.
Yes, philosophers' quirks are as funny as scientists'. That's for sure. Some of them are... peculiar, shalll we say.
We can observe generational changes in traits in fruit flies on human time scales; and bacteria are even easier. That they evolve is fact: i.e., direct observation. The fossil record shows that this happens over longer time scales for other organisms as well, but even setting that aside, the claim that "evolution cannot be observed" is false.
The theory here is that the primary driving mechanism for evolution is natural selection, and that it works by acting on allele frequencies.
To have a meaningful discussion, we need to stop conflating evolution (that organism populations show shifts in traits over time: a fact, or rather series of observations) with modern synthesis theory (a well-tested explanation for why evolution occurs).
I know that it's common usage to refer to modern synthesis theory as "evolution," but that tends to obscure the fact of observable changes in traits in organisms -- not just on geologic time scales, but on human ones as well.
I always understood it to go something like this,Evolution, fact (and also, an observable, observed, and documented process
"The Evolution of Species by the Process of Natural Selection" - (as presented by Darwin) is a theory that uses the fact of evolution to explain how it may be possible for one species to evolve from another species.
Lets lay it that way : General evolution is a big, technically impossible to observe at large fact (even if you can observe it in some organisms), backed up by a lot of smalls facts you can observe and generalised to all living organism by way of a theoritical construct called "natural selection".
Natural selection is a theory, competing and completed by other theories (genetics, lamarkism, comportemental models in zoology, game theory, etc.)
So, fact AND theory.
Now, before getting bashed, I should point out inheritance of aquired caracteristics (lamarkism) just found a new fact for it's defense in contemporary genetics, I don't remember the name but his have to do with the process regulation the expression of DNA in certain cells, process that can change during the life of an organism and is somehow inherited.
I'll have to ask my biologist friend again, but I think they are still baffled by this discovery and working to find an explanation.
I know that it's common usage to refer to modern synthesis theory as "evolution," but that tends to obscure the fact of observable changes in traits in organisms -- not just on geologic time scales, but on human ones as well.
I know. My point was that the generalisation to all living species, and even the one already long dead, is done by inference and generalisation.
I think we are saying the same thing, really.
General evolution is a big, technically impossible to observe at large fact (even if you can observe it in some organisms)
Does the word "observe" mean something different to philosophers? If I see a guy whack a knife blade with a hammer, I'd probably look away, lest I get a steel sliver in the eye. A nanosecond later, the knife blade is broken. I would still say I observed the guy break the knife with the hammer -- you might not.
As to generalization, if I observe the dawn happen on Earth every day, and observe how it happens from space, is it "impossible" to generalize that it will happen tomorrow? If so, then cause and effect are meaningless, and philosophy is screwed just as badly as science!
Now, before getting bashed, I should point out inheritance of aquired characters (lamarkism) just found a new fact for it's defense in contemporary genetics, I don't remember the name but his have to do with the process regulation the expression of DNA in certain cells, process that can change during the life of an organism and is somehow inherited. I'll have to ask my biologist friend again, but I think they are still baffled by this discovery and working to find an explanation.
Mrs. TOZ said much the same thing on Facebook when I posted that blog link a few days ago...
Missed it. I tend to log on once a month or so, look around for obvious updates, and then log off. Mrs Gersen, on the other hand, used to get continual updates via phone...
Why do you keep saying impossible to observe? Does the word "observe" mean something different to philosophers? If I see a guy whack a knife blade with a hammer, I'd probably look away, lest I get a steel sliver in the eye. A nanosecond later, the knife blade is broken. I would still say I observed the guy break the knife with the hammer -- you might not.
Relax, man. Just saying you need to make an inference and a generalisation from observed facts to unobserved ones (Dinosaurs evolved!) as every science must do. This is just normal and standard for every empirical science.
I'm not trying to proove evolution is uncertain. It's proved beyond any reasonable doubt. Just saying there are thing you can't observe (dinosaurs evolving) and have to rely on logic, by making an inference, to accept the theory at large.
Now, before getting bashed, I should point out inheritance of aquired characters (lamarkism) just found a new fact for it's defense in contemporary genetics, I don't remember the name but his have to do with the process regulation the expression of DNA in certain cells, process that can change during the life of an organism and is somehow inherited. I'll have to ask my biologist friend again, but I think they are still baffled by this discovery and working to find an explanation.Check this out.
Epigenetics, that's the word! Very interresting read indeed! Thanks!
My friend and I came to the same conclusion - we thought that Bateson's stochastic model was probably a closer fit than Lamark's.
My friend and I came to the same conclusion - we thought that Bateson's stochastic model was probably a closer fit than Lamark's.
Now I am confused. I'd understood stochastic models to be statistical interpretations (and I seem to recall a Bateson in the context of social, rather than biological, sciences), whereas Lamarck was positing a direct physical cause-and-effect relationship. (Epigenetics would cover a different set of related cause-and-effect relationships.) What step am I missing?
Now I am confused. I'd understood stochastic models to be statistical interpretations, whereas Lamarck was positing a direct physical cause-and-effect relationship. (Epigenetics would cover a different set of related cause-and-effect relationships.) What step am I missing?
Bateson Stochastic's model was devised before modern statistical stochastics models. They have nothing in common but the name. It's confusing, I know.
Bateson's model stipulated that short terms inherited changes could be conserved in the long term due to natural selection.
Say you have an organism with caracteristic X. What Bateson said was this characteristic could change in the life of the organism and be inherited for short term by his progeniture, but at the same time, what was inherited was not a definite characteristic but a modification in what he called his "somatic average" that would bridge the gap between short term "lamarkian" evolution and long term natural selection.
Basically, lets say you have X living in conditions Y (temperate climate, between -30C and 30C temperature).
So X is geared to live at an average of 0, +-30
If X goes north, where temperature average is -10, and not 0. X will survive, because it's already geared to, but his progeniture will now inherid an indirect caracteristic : it will be geared to live at an average of -10, meaning it will be able to survive between 20 and -40.
Epigenetics could explain that, and help to understand things like short terms adaptations to environemental changes slowly getting hardwired in DNA over many generations.
You have to understand this is a crude example, and should be refined by showing how natural selection and what Bateson calls Stochastic evolution interact more precisely with mathematical models, but it's only to carry out the general idea.
And yes, Gregory Bateson : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_Bateson#Somatic_Change_in_Evolution
He worked in so many fields he is difficult to classify.
If X goes north, where temperature average is -10, and not 0. X will survive, because it's already geared to, but his progeniture will now inherid an indirect characteristic : it will be geared to live at an average of -10, meaning it will be able to survive between 20 and -40.
Or the original range variation was in fact 0, +/- 30, and still is... unless there's some observational support for the offspring surviving at -40?
If X goes north, where temperature average is -10, and not 0. X will survive, because it's already geared to, but his progeniture will now inherid an indirect characteristic : it will be geared to live at an average of -10, meaning it will be able to survive between 20 and -40.Or the original range variation was in fact 0, +/- 30, and still is... unless there's some observational support for the offspring surviving at -40?
Yes, it has to be tested. And I'm not sure it would apply at such a range. But the idea is good and testable, and epigenetic may explain why that is so.
By the Way, Gregory Bateson was the son of William Bateson, the biologist who coined the term "genetics"
The universal statement there is - ALL philosopher make the point that everything is stupid.
No, that statement is not all there, stop putting words into my mouth and then insulting me for your statements.
If i had meant to say ALL i would have said ALL. I did not say it, and I did not mean it.
The universal statement there is - ALL philosopher make the point that everything is stupid.No, that statement is not all there, stop putting words into my mouth and then insulting me for your statements.
If i had meant to say ALL i would have said ALL. I did not say it, and I did not mean it.
You know, usually using plural like "philosophers" is an explicit way to make a general claim.
Or you could both have simply read my post on that subject... but that would have required you to stop comparing the size of your appendages for a moment ;D
Or i could look at my post, look at yours, and look for the real difference between the two?
You know, usually using plural like "philosophers" is an explicit way to make a general claim.
So if i say that bears are covered in a thick coat of fur I'm automatically denying the existence of shaved bears?
The universal statement there is - ALL philosopher make the point that everything is stupid.No, that statement is not all there, stop putting words into my mouth and then insulting me for your statements.
If i had meant to say ALL i would have said ALL. I did not say it, and I did not mean it.
*blinks quizzically*
No you most certainly did say that. You literally stated that "Philosophers make the point that everything is stupid." I can't help you with your words, but we're having a discussion and I should be able to hold you to them.
Say what you mean, mean what you say.
You know, usually using plural like "philosophers" is an explicit way to make a general claim.So if i say that bears are covered in a thick coat of fur I'm automatically denying the existence of shaved bears?
That is what we call a sophism. Why, because your concept of bear in the first claim is a biological one, and in the shaved part, a non-biological one. You can't just change the reference concept in a middle of a statement.
Like : Man descend from the ape
Ape descend from the tree
So, man descend from a tree.
You see, descent have two different meanings here, has "bear" have in your counter example, which mean the deduction is flawed.
If you stick to a biological definition of bear - yes, you are denying there is, in nurmal circumstances, such an animal as a bare bear.
Try reading about contradictions and basic logic. You're making mistakes after mistakes because of that: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/square/
And I must say, it's a little... Lets's say that when you are negating well establised facts about history, facts backed up by all historians of science working on those problems, and facts you can find a copy of at your library by reading Leibniz, well... it's not just critical thinking anymore, it's delusion.
There's two problems with your argument.
Your own sources said he was working on the math that was a heck of a lot closer to calculus than that.
You're not differentiating between your claims about what historians of science are saying and what they're saying.
Secondly Newton and even Lebinz were alchemists. Newton in particular was highly influenced by alchemy, so perhaps we shouldn't have cut that department.
Seems we are both right, and both wrong on this one : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact
Would you like to point out what i said that was wrong?
I was trying to explain the theory part, you were trying to explain the fact part. Good enough?
No, I was telling you it was both.
In science a theory does not mean a hypothesis. A theory is something that has such overwhelming evidence for it, vast explanation and predictive power, AND has been tested and verified. It is something that is known in every sense of known except apparently, the philosophical one. The definition is neigh indistinguishable from a fact.
Things like many worlds "theory" or string "theory" is a misuse of the term.
Yes, there is a difference between quantum physics and particle theory. The first is much broader than the second.
Your idea of philosophies contribution to science (the many worlds hypothesis) doesn't seem to have gained as much acceptance as you think.
Natural selection is a theory, competing and completed by other theories (genetics, lamarkism, comportemental models in zoology, game theory, etc.)
The competition died out a while ago. Physiology following phylogeny is explained by descent with modification and knowledge of embryonic development. Its much easier for a gene to be altered to bring about a change in anatomy if the change is in something that directs fetal development.
Genetics refined evolution to make the genes the unit of comparison (or almost, since linked genes are problematic in that regard), much the same way that F=ma is a fact that has a few asterixes on it. (not valid near light speed. Do not use while pregnant. If acceleration persists for more than four hours...)
I think the big problem with epigenic material is that there's no mechanism for it making a long term impact on an organism.
If you stick to a biological definition of bear - yes, you are denying there is, in nurmal circumstances, such an animal as a bare bear.
The "mistakes" are you reading my statements as philosophical ones, when it should be VERY clear thats not how i mean them.
A bare bear would indeed still be a bear without its hair, even if the bear's condition was genetic or otherwise biological (like mange). In other words, i never said i was sticking to normal circumstances.
Bears, like anything else refering to a group, is making an abstract generalization of a concept. Statements about a group need to be understood as somewhat fuzzy in order to be legible.
Say what you mean, mean what you say.
You added all, then said thats what i said.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A bare bear would indeed still be a bear without its hair, even if the bear's condition was genetic or otherwise biological (like mange). In other words, i never said i was sticking to normal circumstances.
Bears, like anything else refering to a group, is making an abstract generalization of a concept. Statements about a group need to be understood as somewhat fuzzy in order to be legible.
Hey, a scientist who don't know how to apply the Ceteris Paribus clause! Good one!
Hey, a scientist who don't know how to apply the Ceteris Paribus clause! Good one!
Or one that thinks its automatic when speaking of groups that you can't and shouldn't try to make a statement about the group apply to every single member of a group, particularly in a setting as informal as this one.
Let me correct that for you
Or one that thinks its automatic when speaking of groups that you can't and shouldn't try to make a statement about the group apply to every single member of a group,when it's your advantage to do so particularly in a setting as informal as this one.