Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Science,Truth and my perspective.
xpowderx
Member UncommonPosts: 2,078
Many many times do I meet opposition of my views. I bring about questions that intrigue many. I also get flack from critics doing there best to dissuade or in rare cases attempt to put down. Some wonder why i have such eccentric views. Some just ignore me. So today I will give you a honest approach of how I see science the world and how I view others who do not agree with my view.
I am a instrumentalist, by which I means that I think that scientific theories are "instruments" that are useful in modelling nature as opposed to embodiments of truth. However, I'm not an instrumentalist in the wider philosophical sense of thinking that ideas are only true if they're useful (a position held, so far as I can discern).
I think that ideas are true if they're true and false if they're false, and that the axes of truth and utility are not coincident. There are plenty of things that are true but of very little use, and there are also plenty of things(such as Newtonian mechanics) that we know to be false and yet are extremely handy in practice.
The great value of scientific theories is not their supposed truth, but rather their extreme usefulness. Indeed, scientific explanations of the world are among the most useful (and beautiful) structures ever devised by human intellect.
The idea that science is the search for truth is an old one, but it's not true (at least in any useful way!). Instead of considering all of science, I'll restrict my attention to physics, because that's the field in which the ideas of "theory", "truth" and so on are easiest to describe. Let's consider what it would mean for a physical theory to be true. A theory in physics is a mathematical structure of some kind together with a mapping from that structure (or perhaps some subset thereof) to entities that are postulated to exist in reality and their behaviours.
The mapping is often called an "interpretation" of the theory. A theory might then be considered to be true if those postulated entities are things that really exist and the behaviours inherent in the theory are the ways those entities really behave In other words, a true theory is an exact representation of some aspect of reality. If science were a search for truth, then the structures and relationships in successive scientific theories in a given field would presumably have to be successively more like the structures and relationships that exist out there in the world. But this isn't the case!
The problem with the idea of science as the search for truth is that successive theories often contain structures that are utterly unlike each other. Even if we are destined to finally arrive at a theory of everything, we must surely doubt that the entities in our current theories bear even the slightest resemblance to the deep structures of the world. For example, the central mathematical structures in classical mechanics are the tangent or cotangent bundles over the configuration manifold, neither of which is in anything other than the vaguest sense like the Hilbert spaces of quantum mechanics. In classical mechanics, observables are functions on the aforementioned bundles, whereas in quantum mechanics they're Hermitian operators. In whatever finally replaces quantum mechanics, they'll most likely be something just as different. In our theories of spacetime, the changes between successive theories have not yet been so great. If lets say the new theory of spin foam becomes our best theory for gravity we'd face an even more extremely change than that seen in the transition to quantum mechanics: from a picture of space as a continuous manifold to a picture of space as a graph of spins. Even if we limit ourselves to a single theory, the idea that its structures map onto structures in the world is problematic, because the same theory can be formulated in lots of different ways.
Are the things really out in the world the matrices of Heisenberg mechanics or the wave-functions of Schrödinger's wave mechanics? There's also the problem that even if we restrict our attention to just one formulation of one theory, there are multiple possible interpretations (only one of which, presumably, even has a chance of being true). The obvious example here is once again quantum mechanics, which is surrounded by a cloud of interpretations of varying levels of acceptability.
If physics isn't a search for truth, then what is it? That's simple: as I've said before, it's the search for useful theories! In other words, physics is the search for theories about the universe that are ever more comprehensive and which ever more closely match experimental data. It is not cumulative: we don't learn one "law of nature" and then another. Nor is is always gradual: later theories are often radically unlike earlier ones. It is not the bolting on of ever more elaborate epicycles .
So why do people persist in seeing physics (and the rest of science) as the search for truth? Some people seem to worry that if science is anything less than the search for Truth then the whole edifice will be swept away by the deluge of postmodernist philosophy that claims that no way of viewing the world is better than any other. But the whole world is so full of evidence for the efficacy of science and the pathetic inadequacy of supposed "alternative ways of knowing" that this seems unlikely, at least outside the involuted world of "critical theory". A second source of confusion is the lingering presence of the discredited idea of inductionism.
Inductionism is the idea that science works by performing lots of experimental measurements and then "inducing" laws of nature from them. For example, we might measure the strength of electrical forces at difference distances from charges and induce the inverse square law of electrostatics. From this vantage point, science might indeed look like a search for truth, because at any stage we could increase the accuracy of our experiments and hence the fit of our induced law with reality: we might go from an inverse 2±0.2 power law to an inverse 2±0.1 power law to an inverse 2±0.01 power law... And, because induction would work "backwards" from the data to theory, whatever theory is induced must be "true". Surpisingly many people think science works like this, but it doesn't.
There are many problems with inductionism that has caused it to be generally discarded, most of which I'll not discuss here. One of them is that given a certain quantity of experimental data there are an infinity of theories that "pass through" the data points, and nothing to choose between them. Naive inductionists don't realise this, and think that a given heap of experimental results allows the induction of a unique theory. Instead, scientists propose new theories that solve problems with existing theories (where a "problem" might be a misfit between two or more theories, a lack of elegance or computational power in a single theory, or a misfit between predictions and data), and then discard the ones that are disproven by experimental tests (in particular, by carefully selecting experimental tests that rule out all but one of the "in play" theories).
The problem with this is that physical theories always refer to things beyond what we measure. Physicists look at problems with current physical theories, the clash between quantum theory and relativity, or the problem of how to actually build a quantum computer or whatever and they try to solve these problems. They propose solutions to these problems and then criticise them according to whether or not they provide good explanations.
Physics is not primarily about truth, for there are an infinity of possible structures in our theories that go beyond what we measure, there's no way to reduce this infinity to just one, and only one could be true. Just to remember that this is only one small part of science overall.
So in perspective"useful theories survive. As time goes on evolution, which was once very useful is being replaced with newer and more significant(useful) theories. This is not to discredit evolution. But even a king of the hill will eventually come down.
This I hope helps explain my perspective to my fellow forum users.
Now to the second part of this address. My critics, how i love them so. How do I view you? No names need to be mentioned. You only have to look at what we know for a fairly consistent view of my critics ideology. Tell me if these fit you?
1. There is a stable, coherent, knowable self. This self is conscious, rational, autonomous, and universal—no physical conditions or differences substantially affect how this self operates.
2. This self knows itself and the world through reason, or rationality, posited as the highest form of mental functioning, and the only objective form.
3. The mode of knowing produced by the objective rational self is "science," which can provide universal truths about the world, regardless of the individual status of the knower.
4. The knowledge produced by science is "truth," and is eternal.
5. The knowledge/truth produced by science (by the rational objective knowing self) will always lead toward progress and perfection. All human institutions and practices can be analyzed by science (reason/objectivity) and improved.
6. Reason is the ultimate judge of what is true, and therefore of what is right, and what is good (what is legal and what is ethical). Freedom consists of obedience to the laws that conform to the knowledge discovered by reason.
7. In a world governed by reason, the true will always be the same as the good and the right (and the beautiful); there can be no conflict between what is true and what is right (etc.).
8. Science thus stands as the paradigm for any and all socially useful forms of knowledge. Science is neutral and objective; scientists, those who produce scientific knowledge through their unbiased rational capacities, must be free to follow the laws of reason, and not be motivated by other concerns (such as money or power).
9. Language, or the mode of expression used in producing and disseminating knowledge, must be rational also. To be rational, language must be transparent; it must function only to represent the real/perceivable world which the rational mind observes. There must be a firm and objective connection between the objects of perception and the words used to name them (between signifier and signified).
These are some of the fundamental premises of humanism, or of modernism. They serve—as you can probably tell—to justify and explain virtually all of our social structures and institutions, including democracy, law, science, ethics, and aesthetics.
Is that a decent interpretation? I hope so.
Now where did I paste that from? Hmm.. good question! If you want the answer just look up the 18th century(1660-1789) and what this age was called. Many of my harshest critics follow this ideology. Now the question I have for my critics is why do you have a ideology that you follow that is over 200 years old?
How do you think I view a argument coming from someone such as this? Should I take the posting seriously or should I do what anyone of my design would do and laugh it off.
In reflection I should perhaps view my critics in parody if not the amusement of irony. That in this time and age there are still critics who continue to relive past ideology. As such I often get sad that his happens.
I hope for the future that the wonderous works of people will prevail and bring the man out of darkness and into the light.
Thanks, sincerely xpowderx
Comments
I'm presented with 5 doors. Behind only one door is the truth. I open door one. It has a long hallway. At the front of the hallway is a sign that say, "This may be the door of truth, but you need to walk further to find out if it is." I keep walking and I walk a long ways. A long time goes by and things seem okay for me for a while. Then, at the end of the hallway, I find a sign that says, "This is the wrong door." So, I backtrack and go to door number 2. It has a similar sign as door number 1. So, I proceed down the long hallway and encounter a similar situation as with the hallway behind door number 1.
My point is, it's called "trial and error". We may just be walking down the hallway behind door number 3 or 4 right now while door number 5 may be the absolute truth. We don't know that. But for you to say we are no more closer to the truth than before is wrong. That goes against the logic of using deduction to find an answer.
I don't understand you man. Why do you keep trying to discredit the scientific method. It works. No scientist will tell you that a theory is a truth. They all admit that new evidence can be found to make us have to rethink what we thought before. Scientists do it all the time.
===============================
How about attending a course in Ego management?
Or if you are so in need of attention, why don't you apply for American Idol?
I mean in his article he totally disregards deductive reasoning.
===============================
I think someone needs a girlfriend?
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience"
CS Lewis
What you describe above is nothing more than experimenting a hypothesis. There is nothing wrong with that. Glad they still teach that in school. I am not dismantling that method at all. What I am dismantling is the notion that science is a "one truth", It is not. As someone who experiments quite frequently there are many variables of truth. Not a single one on the same subject may even be alike.
Besides gnomexxx, why would I dismantle a method I have no choice but to use? Perhaps you read it in a way other than what it is.
Science will never arrive at a "theory of everything". The day we stop questioning everything is the day science dies. This of course works in a religious context as well, the idea of God will never die because people will always ask the question "What if God really exists?"
Religion and science can co-exist, no problem. What is pissing people off is when religion tries to manipulate language and claim there is scientific basis for the existence of God. Religion can coexist with science, but they should be kept very far apart. People are free to believe what they want, within the reasonable constraints of society.
But scientific method can never be used to describe the existence of God unless he comes down from the sky and says "hi" to us all, does a few miracles, explains why things are the way they are. Until that happens, stop using pseudo-science to try and explain your faith.
So what if the theory of Evolution is wrong? That doesn't make the theory of God any more or less plausible. Science will refine it, we'll learn more about genetics, and we'll find more evidence in the fossil record, and the theory will be refined or replaced.
All you need is faith, but please, stay the hell away from the laboratory.
Still waiting for your Holy Grail MMORPG? Interesting...
You made me laugh. Especially the last comment in red.
I'm sorry but your rheotoric is entirely typical of a guy with a Bible in his hand, standing on my doorstep asking me if I want to discuss the nature of existence. What you're doing here, is representitive of the way modern religious groups are changing to cope with the modern world.
Churches are changing their sermons into "courses". "The Alpha Course", is one advertised by my local church - complete with futuristic banner and absolutely no mention of God. But it's taking place in a church, and it questions the methods of science. The course itself may never mention God but the underlying idea is to promote the idea of God.
You are here to promote the idea of God, directly or indirectly. You're doing it in a rather sinister way, if you can't be open about your beliefs, why wouldn't people be suspicious of you? When I say stay the hell away from the laboratory, the underlying rhetoric in that statement is intentional.
Keep science and religion seperate.
Still waiting for your Holy Grail MMORPG? Interesting...
Rhetoric, where? Is not rheotoric Recant. I dont tote a bible, nor do I mention anything about a deity. In fact? Why are you bringing up religion at all? I care less about it concerning the OP? Nor do I care what church does what. I DONT GO TO CHURCH.
If you have issues with religion or faith they are your issues! Not mine! So please keep non-objective views from the thread. Please quit mixing the "I HATE GOD" stuff from science. I do not care if you hate god or church or whatever. So quit "preaching" it. I feel like you are a theist with your view.
As anyone who knows me knows I am not a theist.
the question you should ask yourself is when did you mix the anti-theism view with science?Can you separate the two? It honestly has no play in science and in fact is"useless"in scientific practice. Thus anti-theism and science should be separate as well.
Touche. I did not say "I hate God", there's a difference between misinterpretation and simply putting words into my mouth.
Sigh, this is the typical recourse of someone who adopts the idea of "Intelligent Design". You say it is not about religion, you say it's not about God, but that's exactly what it is about. Perhaps not this thread post in particular, but a glance at your post history reveals a singular theme throughout.
It's what religion has become to try and counter the effects of our glorious information age. I can seperate the two quite easily, and I can easily see through the thinly veiled language of Intelligent Design or whatever other silly names modern religion has adopted.
A more subtle indoctrination, but indoctrination nonetheless.
"The people are more likely to believe a big lie, than a small one." - Archetypical fanatical nutcase.
Still waiting for your Holy Grail MMORPG? Interesting...
Recant,
If I.D sticks around it sticks around. I look at I.D objectively. I am not here to throw some hidden religious conspiracy to people who read my posts. I can actually say that alot of what is considered I.D is new to me. I prefer QF0QR related subjects. Just because a atheist or a non-theist throws out accusations in the science community as a whole does not mean a subject should be discounted.
Some of us even see a small bit of benefit by testing this theory. Now as to application, depends if anything is useful in it(which there is). The problem with iID is you have two opponents that have nothing to do with science overall. You have those of the anti-theist movement who claim its creationism and god.. blah blah blah.. And then you have the theists who try there best to make this theory as a subject to attest to that groups faith(God)..blah blah blah..
Both groups are inherently wrong and both should really just shut up. I remember once when a certain space,time,mass theory came around both groups were in a uproar. Then from it came string theory and everything theory.
This original post had nothing to do with I.D. But as stated a reflection of myself and my views contained there of. I am a opponent of standardized science. You know the things many kids are taught in school as supposed fact(truth). I do not want religion in school. But I do believe that our young people should be given fair tools to be able to create and invision and have free-thought rather than the structured group non thinking mold our education tries to imbue on our current students.
I hope this explains a bit.
Yes Iomiller,
I for one am not rejecting science. I have issues with absolute. It looks like you read my post this time.
For me to reject science would be to reject what I do and what is me. Thus rejecting science is not what this post is intended to do. Rather give a eye-raising to the science is"Truth" bunch. That it is not what science is about.
I usually oppose a group who sticks to only one theory. It is the same as a theist. the one god thing. Except in the science is truth bunch science is the "god". no practicality for such a approach, in fact such thought often poses a negative variable with concerns of research. Why? because these people only have black and white thought. No middle ground, no gray area. This applies to a theist group as well. Its god or no god. black and white.
While both groups use science as a means to a end, science has no use for either. speaking as a scientist it only hinders what science is.
For a researcher the gray area is what we want. Why we do research. Why do we look into the gray area. For anything that will benefit our society and our universe we live in. For the benefit of mankind.
Thanks!! and do not forget to use the "force".
Don't worry xpowderx, outfctrl would agree with you
Damn dude... always you post those walls of text. Do something for the technical people once in a while: Keep your language down to notation and symbols.
Or... post on something highly technical in physics. I mean come on: You're supposedly a guest speaker at a university somewhere, so you could at least give us something cool once in a while. In exchange, we'll read the long-winded rhetoric
We've got a lot of technical people here I think... at least I know that Methane, Nasica and maybe one or two others in addition to yourself are.
Wait... you probably teach physics for a living and hate doing it outside of the job... well... I guess you could at least add a link to something interest once in a while after those text barricades.
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.
At first sight of this thread I thought, hey, this should be interesting.
Open it and Powder has the longest ass post I've ever seen, tl;dr, I'm not in the mood today.
Change my mind so much I can't even trust it
My mind change me so much I can't even trust myself
What you describe above is nothing more than experimenting a hypothesis. There is nothing wrong with that. Glad they still teach that in school. I am not dismantling that method at all. What I am dismantling is the notion that science is a "one truth", It is not. As someone who experiments quite frequently there are many variables of truth. Not a single one on the same subject may even be alike.
Besides gnomexxx, why would I dismantle a method I have no choice but to use? Perhaps you read it in a way other than what it is.
I never heard anyone say that science is truth. That was my point. Science is experimentation to find the best possible explanation to phenomenon around us. That explanation changes as new data comes forward. That's part of the cool thing about science. It's open to new evidence and critique.
===============================
One man's truth is just that. One man's truth.
One man's revelation is just that. One man's revelation.
On man's burning bush is another man's jock itch.
I had some ice cream tonight and it was delicious. Blue Bell birthday cake. Yummy. But some people don't like it. They're wrong. The truth is that it is good.
===============================
Next year scientists in a lab some 300 ft below ground will use a machine to collide two particals together. The expected result of this experiment is a simulation of the universe immediately after the big bang.
Next year a new space telescope will be launched that will have the ability to locate earth sized planets. This telescope will make visible parts of the universe that haven't been able to see.
Microwave radiation permiates the entirety of the universe, and is evenly spread throughout. It can be heard, and is believed to be the result of the big bang.
I believe the universe is round. Everything in the universe is round. There is a structure to the universe, a pattern if you will. It's visible to all, and I do not believe that the universe itself diverges from this patern. I do not believe that gravity is so much the result of the universe, but instead, as we experience it, just another state. The result of energy changing states and manipulating the fabric of prespace. I believe there was gravity before the universe was formed, think an incredibly large black hole. Space has curvature. Matter at the furthest edges of it are moving away, and when it's far enough away it will not be visible. Much like trying to see China from the US. There is no unique in the universe, and I believe this is true of the universe.
Just my perspective. We exist along a beam of light, and that light is being bent around something and expanding outward.
Edit: I forgot. Isn't one part of the scientific method to reproduce in a lab? If you can prove a theory by reproducing the expected results what does it become? I do believe some theories become truth.
Wish Darkfall would release.
Alright enough of these threads... k? ok then.
O_o o_O