Scientifically-minded individuals who discount philosophy do themselves a disservice. The scientific method presupposes all sorts of non-scientific things: possibilities, the existence of numbers, the possibility of empirical knowledge, to name a few; discounting philosophical inquiry into these subjects hamstrings would-be scientists, as it closes them off from the very foundations of their enterprise.
"Unless you presume that all things that work and produce results consistent with objectivity are false, you're doing it wrong! If you take as provisionally true that 'things that both produce verifiable results and cannot be disproven are worthy of pursuit', you're just as irrational as people who said 'I don't understand therefore JESUS'".
It really isn't. Complaining about "the unverifiability of the existence of numbers" marks you clearly as a crackpot. Numbers are an arbitrary contruct, which happens to reflect perfectly the material world AND produce useful predictive results - so consistently so that questioning "numbers" is like questioning evolution in a discussion of biology: A demonstation that the questioner is apallingly ignorant, both in general and in specific.
I never asserted that the existence of numbers is unverifiable; in fact, I asserted that its presupposed by the scientific method. S -> N; so, whatever justification attaches to scientific discoveries using numbers also attaches to the existence of numbers. The exact nature of numbers, however, is up for debate; if they're merely "arbitrary constructs", it's magical that they are so useful. I prefer to eschew magical explanations of why things are useful.
BTW, positivism is dead. Still-born, in fact. Meaning doesn't imply verifiability; the converse is true, of course, but you have to know that a statement is meaningful before you can determine whether or not its verifiable.
Numbers aren't constructed. They're discovered, just not via empirical intuition, but through (purely) intellectual intuition. Once they discovered, useful relations between them can be discovered.
... but you already lost with the ad hominem, so I don't know why I'm pretending you'd actually listen to reason.
"You're wrong in the same way you were wrong before, presumably for the same reasons that you were so proud of being wrong for before" is not "you're wrong because you are a bad person". Please, do try to keep up.
You're the one insisting that numbers do not exist and that anything involving numbers is magic. You don't get to complain when I point out that regardless of your factless groundless idiotic assertions, eppur si muove.
You're saying that science presupposes the existence of numbers, but honestly science simply seems to use them--like the words "if" and "then", they are tools used to describe. By saying they're discovered-not-constructed, you seem to be presupposing them.
So rather than believe that useful tools were constructed and useful, you believe that there is an ultimate truth and something which arrives at this ultimate truth via logical study is non-scientific.
Also you are defining a useful tool being incredibly useful as evidence of magic. I do not think that word means what you think it means. Not by any of the definitions.
You said "the existence of numbers" was unscientific. Which is, once again, both idiotic and indefensible. And also another way of saying "numbers do not exist".
I simply cut through the bullshit, got directly to the point, and you gave up because you had no defense left, just like you've done all the OTHER times your "acts of pure will" dosage has gotten low.
You appear to be mistaking arbitrary for unmeaningful.
Note that in mathematics, which is under discussion, the term "arbitrary construct" means something undetermined or not assigned a specific value. When discussing the entire group of things which fall under the definition of "number", this is a useful term.
Scientific discovery does not presuppose that there is ultimate truth. The scientific method supposes that a map that is usefully close enough to the territory of true facts can be discovered by measured and repeated experimentation. The word "ultimate" does not come into it.
Facts aren't true; statements can be. Facts obtain. You're presupposing that there's a territory at all, which is the same as presupposing there's an "ultimate truth", that is, one (possibly infinite) conjunctive true statement. Whether or not that is knowable, whether or not we can be empirically justified in believing "a map ... is usefully close enough to the territory ... [to] be discovered by measured and repeated experimentation" is not itself an empirical question. Science doesn't get magical powers of bootstrapping itself into justification. You have to presuppose that human rationality can lead one to truth.
Is it possible you two have been misreading each other and that's contributing to the disagreement? This seems to be getting very harsh very quickly, and it strikes me as relatively unusual.
ETA: okay, seems to be mellowing again a bit. Never mind.
(Also, dammit, there are plenty of reasons to be wrong or believe wrong things that aren't related to being off meds, and that aren't fixed by meds, she said, cuddling her meds.)
It's possible you can't disable notifications of "replies to me" per-thread. I can block per-thread notifications, but not "replies to me in one thread", and "replies to me" appear to take precedence.
You know about the five axioms of mathematics, right? You know about the issue that there can be different sizes of infinity? You know about the problem of the "paradigm shift" in science? You know about the problem of induction?
Philosophy doesn't undermine maths and science. It's whole purpose is to examine the issues which underpin those subjects.
Hmmm, I didn't realise quite how out of hand this thread had become when I wrote that comment. (Though I do find it funny that the commentator goes from "leaving in a huff" to "asking for help with block email updates on your comments".)
Yep. There's certainly still a place for Philosophy in modern academia. I suspect that most people hold a dim view of it because they think of musty classrooms of not-quite-sciences-not-quite-arts students picking their bellyfluff and wondering why they're really here, man. Which is often how it's taught at intro level.
..There needs to be an "All Philosophy is Descartian" TVTropes page ala "All Psychology is Fruedian" (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AllPsychologyIsFreudian).
I do, but there reaches a point *very* rapidly where the scientist stops and says "You're right, I can't prove we're NOT just computer simulations or that you're NOT a figment of my imagination. So what? Proof of a negative is impossible, and proof in general is the sole province of artificial constructed realms like mathematics anyway. What ACTUALLY matters is that, by making certain assumptions that we can't show to be unreasonable, we can make predictions about what we SHOULD find if we go looking. And, oh, hey, we keep finding stuff that means our theory works. When it doesn't work, we re-examine it. Eppur si muove, the true test of a theory is in verifying the predictions it makes, and this shit works. It is, thus, true *enough* for horseshoes. Stop wasting my time, I'm building something here."
I mean, it *might* work because the whole universe is a figment of my imagination, but there's two important things about that statement: First, it cannot be verified or tested, and is thus pointless and irrelevant. Second, if we accept that to be true, then we cannot learn anything and all inquiry is useless. It therefore behooves us to dismiss that possibility outright until there is some iota of a reason to assume one of those two statements MIGHT not be true any more.
I don't think a whole lot of (good) philosophers, especially philosophy of science types, spend their time trying to prove Solipsism. It's an old, dead horse, and has been for decades.
Weaselking, I was not talking about epistemology. Like the Oliver Sacks book says, it's possible for someone to mistake their wife for a hat. That's not the issue here.
The point is that mathematics is a complex logical system and the principles which underpin it are important. How the mathematical systems work and any potential contradictions is a hotbed of potential philosophical enquiry which is not the same thing as simply (or even complexly) "doing maths". But none of that enquiry seeks to suggest that mathematics is all for nothing. Not at all.
To look back at the cartoon, I GUESS you could sum up the whole purpose of this philosophy as "I want mathematics to actually work, so therefore mathematics actually works" but that would be absurdly simplifying the Philosophy of Mathematics.
Similarly, the issue of paradigm shift seems like a big problem until we look at the history of scientific development. On the one hand, Einsteinian physics means that Newtonian physics is completely wrong, yet we can still use Newtonian physics when for smaller calculations that don't require a big computer to work out and be close enough to the right answer as makes no difference. The problem is "are we justified in thinking that science is progressing?" The example often used to illustrate this dilemma is "phlogiston". No one ever went "oh this phlogiston idea doesn't work properly so let's talk about oxides instead". Instead scientists spent a long while trying to make it work without a decent theory available to explain the facts. (The point being, just because your theory fits with the facts, doesn't mean that a scientific breakthrough isn't eluding you.)
And to go back to epistemology, even the whole "are we in The Matrix" thing is kind of missing the point of the exercise. We only understand the world through observation, so when asking "what is real" we inevitably find ourselves talking in terms of our own experience. Is the real world colourless? Well certainly our understanding of colour is to do with light reflection and our brain's interpretation of it, but then how else are we supposed to understand about colour other than what we see. Do we need an entirely new word to describe the texture of the objects themselves that cause us to see them in the way we do? Whenever newcomers do that "what is real thing" they always resort to "touch". I can touch it (or "you'll feel it when I hit you" is another favourite), but what's so special about our sense of touch over any other sense. Like you yourself were saying, it's the consistency of our experience that makes it real and the sense of touch tends to be more consistent (sometimes we see double or hallucinate, but when we reach out to touch we can normally confirm for ourselves what is real).
If you think all philosophy is "are we all in The Matrix" then I can see why you don't like it. But to be quite frank, that's like imagining that all scientists are weird guys in white coats cackling as they try to bring dead bodies back to life....
(My goodness, I'm sleepy and ranting. Not a good combination. I did Philosophy over 5 years ago so I'm sure the way I'm describing this stuff is all over the place, but please give me credit for trying.)
And yet, I CONSTANTLY get "but you can't disprove solipsism!" arguments from idiots. It is the EXACT equivalent of the "if Evolution was true, why are there still monkeys? Huh? HUH?" argument, and, like the "the Bible prohibits homosexuality" argument, using it is a demonstration of the unbelievable deliberate and malicious ignorance of the speaker.
It's not that I think philosophy in general is useless, it's that any complaint that STARTS with "well, we can't use axioms because they haven't been proven" is, by definition, bullshit.
And here, we opened with "science is stupid because it uses math and math is magic", to which I started *and ended* my response with "math works. The only thing philosophy can tell us about math is HOW it works and WHY it works - whether or not it works is a settled fucking question".
That's not how I interpreted what they said at all.
They said: "Discounting philosophical inquiry into these subjects hamstrings would-be scientists, as it closes them off from the very foundations of their enterprise. "
That sounds remarkably like what you just said: philosophy can tell us about math... HOW it works and WHY it works
The initial comment didn't suggest to me that they were saying that Maths probably wouldn't work without Philosophers there to demonstrate whether numbers are real or not.
But you said there was a history between you two, so perhaps that's where I missed the context? But I can't help but agree with their initial reply. Compared to what they actually said in that initial comment, your response felt like a bit of a non-sequitur.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2012-07-22 02:19 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2012-07-22 02:31 am (UTC)"Unless you presume that all things that work and produce results consistent with objectivity are false, you're doing it wrong! If you take as provisionally true that 'things that both produce verifiable results and cannot be disproven are worthy of pursuit', you're just as irrational as people who said 'I don't understand therefore JESUS'".
Booooo-ring.
(no subject)
Date: 2012-07-22 02:33 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2012-07-22 02:41 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2012-07-22 02:51 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2012-07-22 02:53 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2012-07-22 03:06 am (UTC)(the construction of a useful tool from first principles is not "magical", and never has been.)
(no subject)
Date: 2012-07-22 03:06 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2012-07-22 03:09 am (UTC)... but you already lost with the ad hominem, so I don't know why I'm pretending you'd actually listen to reason.
(no subject)
Date: 2012-07-22 03:16 am (UTC)You're the one insisting that numbers do not exist and that anything involving numbers is magic. You don't get to complain when I point out that regardless of your factless groundless idiotic assertions, eppur si muove.
(no subject)
Date: 2012-07-22 03:17 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2012-07-22 03:19 am (UTC)Good day.
(no subject)
Date: 2012-07-22 03:22 am (UTC)So rather than believe that useful tools were constructed and useful, you believe that there is an ultimate truth and something which arrives at this ultimate truth via logical study is non-scientific.
Also you are defining a useful tool being incredibly useful as evidence of magic. I do not think that word means what you think it means. Not by any of the definitions.
Oh, wait, you've muted the convo. Bye.
(no subject)
Date: 2012-07-22 03:26 am (UTC)I simply cut through the bullshit, got directly to the point, and you gave up because you had no defense left, just like you've done all the OTHER times your "acts of pure will" dosage has gotten low.
(no subject)
Date: 2012-07-22 03:26 am (UTC)Scientific discovery presupposes there is ultimate truth. Otherwise, it's no more justified than pre-scientific bullshit.
(no subject)
Date: 2012-07-22 03:27 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2012-07-22 03:33 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2012-07-22 03:33 am (UTC)Note that in mathematics, which is under discussion, the term "arbitrary construct" means something undetermined or not assigned a specific value. When discussing the entire group of things which fall under the definition of "number", this is a useful term.
Scientific discovery does not presuppose that there is ultimate truth. The scientific method supposes that a map that is usefully close enough to the territory of true facts can be discovered by measured and repeated experimentation. The word "ultimate" does not come into it.
(no subject)
Date: 2012-07-22 03:37 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2012-07-22 03:39 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2012-07-22 03:43 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2012-07-22 03:44 am (UTC)ETA: okay, seems to be mellowing again a bit. Never mind.
(Also, dammit, there are plenty of reasons to be wrong or believe wrong things that aren't related to being off meds, and that aren't fixed by meds, she said, cuddling her meds.)
(no subject)
Date: 2012-07-22 03:49 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2012-07-22 03:50 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2012-07-22 04:01 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2012-07-22 04:14 am (UTC)Still, a gmail filter on the URL should do it.
(no subject)
Date: 2012-07-22 05:23 pm (UTC)Philosophy doesn't undermine maths and science. It's whole purpose is to examine the issues which underpin those subjects.
(no subject)
Date: 2012-07-22 05:27 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2012-07-22 07:01 pm (UTC)..There needs to be an "All Philosophy is Descartian" TVTropes page ala "All Psychology is Fruedian" (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AllPsychologyIsFreudian).
(no subject)
Date: 2012-07-23 05:25 am (UTC)Also 99% of philosophical debates.
(no subject)
Date: 2012-07-25 12:30 am (UTC)I mean, it *might* work because the whole universe is a figment of my imagination, but there's two important things about that statement: First, it cannot be verified or tested, and is thus pointless and irrelevant. Second, if we accept that to be true, then we cannot learn anything and all inquiry is useless. It therefore behooves us to dismiss that possibility outright until there is some iota of a reason to assume one of those two statements MIGHT not be true any more.
(no subject)
Date: 2012-07-25 12:30 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2012-07-25 12:31 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2012-07-25 01:20 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2012-07-25 01:43 am (UTC)The point is that mathematics is a complex logical system and the principles which underpin it are important. How the mathematical systems work and any potential contradictions is a hotbed of potential philosophical enquiry which is not the same thing as simply (or even complexly) "doing maths". But none of that enquiry seeks to suggest that mathematics is all for nothing. Not at all.
To look back at the cartoon, I GUESS you could sum up the whole purpose of this philosophy as "I want mathematics to actually work, so therefore mathematics actually works" but that would be absurdly simplifying the Philosophy of Mathematics.
Similarly, the issue of paradigm shift seems like a big problem until we look at the history of scientific development. On the one hand, Einsteinian physics means that Newtonian physics is completely wrong, yet we can still use Newtonian physics when for smaller calculations that don't require a big computer to work out and be close enough to the right answer as makes no difference. The problem is "are we justified in thinking that science is progressing?" The example often used to illustrate this dilemma is "phlogiston". No one ever went "oh this phlogiston idea doesn't work properly so let's talk about oxides instead". Instead scientists spent a long while trying to make it work without a decent theory available to explain the facts. (The point being, just because your theory fits with the facts, doesn't mean that a scientific breakthrough isn't eluding you.)
And to go back to epistemology, even the whole "are we in The Matrix" thing is kind of missing the point of the exercise. We only understand the world through observation, so when asking "what is real" we inevitably find ourselves talking in terms of our own experience. Is the real world colourless? Well certainly our understanding of colour is to do with light reflection and our brain's interpretation of it, but then how else are we supposed to understand about colour other than what we see. Do we need an entirely new word to describe the texture of the objects themselves that cause us to see them in the way we do? Whenever newcomers do that "what is real thing" they always resort to "touch". I can touch it (or "you'll feel it when I hit you" is another favourite), but what's so special about our sense of touch over any other sense. Like you yourself were saying, it's the consistency of our experience that makes it real and the sense of touch tends to be more consistent (sometimes we see double or hallucinate, but when we reach out to touch we can normally confirm for ourselves what is real).
If you think all philosophy is "are we all in The Matrix" then I can see why you don't like it. But to be quite frank, that's like imagining that all scientists are weird guys in white coats cackling as they try to bring dead bodies back to life....
(My goodness, I'm sleepy and ranting. Not a good combination. I did Philosophy over 5 years ago so I'm sure the way I'm describing this stuff is all over the place, but please give me credit for trying.)
(no subject)
Date: 2012-07-25 02:03 am (UTC)This annoys me.
(no subject)
Date: 2012-07-25 09:00 pm (UTC)And here, we opened with "science is stupid because it uses math and math is magic", to which I started *and ended* my response with "math works. The only thing philosophy can tell us about math is HOW it works and WHY it works - whether or not it works is a settled fucking question".
(no subject)
Date: 2012-07-25 10:39 pm (UTC)They said: "Discounting philosophical inquiry into these subjects hamstrings would-be scientists, as it closes them off from the very foundations of their enterprise. "
That sounds remarkably like what you just said:
philosophy can tell us about math... HOW it works and WHY it works
The initial comment didn't suggest to me that they were saying that Maths probably wouldn't work without Philosophers there to demonstrate whether numbers are real or not.
But you said there was a history between you two, so perhaps that's where I missed the context? But I can't help but agree with their initial reply. Compared to what they actually said in that initial comment, your response felt like a bit of a non-sequitur.