Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Science is a metaphysical party pooper.

Page 10 of 17 [ 259 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 ... 17  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

29 Jan 2009, 9:41 am

undefineable wrote:

I thought I was agreed with u about maths being a mental rather than a physical reality, in fact :?. I'm aware about the multiverse theory being used to fit the equations, but would find non-mathematical theories more convincing, perhaps cos I find maths boring {I'm biased!}_


Try to do physics without mathematics. I think you would have a hard time with that.

ruveyn



undefineable
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 13 May 2007
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 402
Location: UK

29 Jan 2009, 5:14 pm

Sand wrote:
Any sensible discussion lays out the definition of terms used whether or not they pertain to how the words are used outside the discussion. This is the only way to sensibly discuss anything.


Makes sense; take for example that favourite of Buddhist logicians - 'Nothing truly exists' :o :)

I do wonder why you define 'reality/existence' as 'anything physical' tho



Last edited by undefineable on 29 Jan 2009, 5:25 pm, edited 2 times in total.

undefineable
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 13 May 2007
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 402
Location: UK

29 Jan 2009, 5:19 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Try to do physics without mathematics. I think you would have a hard time with that.


True, given my understanding. I also lack any interest in the practice of physics, however; I find its cosmological conclusions fascinating, but have to accept them on trust - If I were a 'professional philosopher' I'd want to collaborate with scientists.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

01 Feb 2009, 7:28 am

undefineable wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Try to do physics without mathematics. I think you would have a hard time with that.


True, given my understanding. I also lack any interest in the practice of physics, however; I find its cosmological conclusions fascinating, but have to accept them on trust - If I were a 'professional philosopher' I'd want to collaborate with scientists.


But they might not want to collaborate with you. Have you ever read the famous three volume Feynman Lectures? It is loaded with jabs at philosophers.

ruveyn



slowmutant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Feb 2008
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,430
Location: Ontario, Canada

01 Feb 2009, 7:33 am

What did Fenyman have against philosophers?



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

01 Feb 2009, 10:24 am

slowmutant wrote:
What did Fenyman have against philosophers?


He was of the opinion that philosophers had little to offer science. He was right of course. I will mine some of his material and quote it in a latter posting.

ruveyn



slowmutant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Feb 2008
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,430
Location: Ontario, Canada

01 Feb 2009, 10:30 am

ruveyn wrote:
slowmutant wrote:
What did Fenyman have against philosophers?


He was of the opinion that philosophers had little to offer science. He was right of course. I will mine some of his material and quote it in a latter posting.

ruveyn


Okay, I'll stay by the computer.



undefineable
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 13 May 2007
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 402
Location: UK

01 Feb 2009, 7:35 pm

ruveyn wrote:
slowmutant wrote:
What did Fenyman have against philosophers?


He was of the opinion that philosophers had little to offer science. He was right of course. I will mine some of his material and quote it in a latter posting.

ruveyn


The practice of science needs no basis in philosophy; it's when you draw conclusions/ interpretations/'spin' from your results that you're on philosophical territory; science has much to offer philosophy in this way. Scientists who prefer to leave their results for others to pick over are likely to be uninterested in working with those people directly, I would imagine.



Last edited by undefineable on 01 Feb 2009, 7:46 pm, edited 2 times in total.

blackelk
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jan 2009
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 308
Location: New York

01 Feb 2009, 7:41 pm

I love it when it kills entire cities in an instant.

:roll:



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

01 Feb 2009, 7:51 pm

blackelk wrote:
I love it when it kills entire cities in an instant.

:roll:


What kills entire cities in an instant?

Think of Pompeii.

ruveyn



slowmutant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Feb 2008
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,430
Location: Ontario, Canada

01 Feb 2009, 7:58 pm

I think blackelk was referring to the atomic bomb.



Hector
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Mar 2008
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,493

01 Feb 2009, 7:58 pm

ruveyn wrote:
He was of the opinion that philosophers had little to offer science. He was right of course.

I am sympathetic to Feynman's despair at those he called "pompous fools", but plenty of philosophers have made significant contributions to the scientific method and mathematics if not to science itself. I'd speculate that especially notable are people with a background in maths or science who entered philosophy, rather than the other way around.



blackelk
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jan 2009
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 308
Location: New York

01 Feb 2009, 8:00 pm

I think this whole worship of science thing is totally lame. The threadstarter sounds like a Dawkins parrot.

""You can take away a man's gods, but only to give him others in return."



slowmutant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Feb 2008
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,430
Location: Ontario, Canada

01 Feb 2009, 8:02 pm

I agree.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

01 Feb 2009, 8:04 pm

slowmutant wrote:
I think blackelk was referring to the atomic bomb.


Science is necessary, but not sufficient for nuclear weapons attacks. Politics has just as much to do with it as science, perhaps more. Most of the scientists and Los Alamos signed onto Leo Szillard's petition to put atomic weapons under international control. You saw how far that went, yes?

ruveyn



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

01 Feb 2009, 8:07 pm

Hector wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
He was of the opinion that philosophers had little to offer science. He was right of course.

I am sympathetic to Feynman's despair at those he called "pompous fools", but plenty of philosophers have made significant contributions to the scientific method and mathematics if not to science itself. I'd speculate that especially notable are people with a background in maths or science who entered philosophy, rather than the other way around.


Which philosophers in recent history. I think of Kuhn and Popper. Have you any other candidates? In the 19th century Mill made some contributions that mattered and so did Whewell. You have to go all the way back to Bacon for any significant input. In classical times you have the influence of Aristotle which was not all that good for real science.

ruveyn