Vylo

I accept ambiguity, but I believe much of it can be unraveled by science. By accepting unknowability (is that a real word? ), I am accepting that i do not know how much science will answer.

Clutch

LOL! Nailed it in one, Vork.

exnihilo

The easiest answer is always denial, huh. But, still no answer to Kuhn's proposition, it's interesting to see that people are still unwilling or unable to deal with the serious issues that he, Paul Feyerabend and Imre Lakatos have raised and, instead, retreat to straw man arguments as a last resort.

--exnihilo

contracycle

I think its a slightly misplaced question. I don;t think adherence to dogma is particularly relevant.

It seems to me that people have a tendency, by and large, to believe whatever is most convenient, most beneficial, to believe. What individuals believe is clearly influenced by factors very much beyond the strict evidential data available, and huge amounts of personal identity may be invested in a particular position.

Why, then, would we expect the notion of science to do away with this observable human behaviour? It does not - it merely places it in a framework which mitigates the negative effects of that tendency. The necessity to produce indendently verifiable results qualifies the tendency to advocate self-supporting results. And while there exists no mechanism to compel someone to accept a proof they deny, even if millions of others accept it, that will have to do.

Is it possible that humanity might lose the scientific method? Its possible, I guess. But otherwise, no, I canot see any practical limits to what is humanly knowable, beyond what is there to know. The difference between science and theism IMO is not that the various adherents have a different qualitative emotional commitment to their posuitions - the difference is the mechanism by which those positions are derived.

exnihilo

Yeah, missplaced, the silence is deafening here, except for the occaisonal vacuous remark. Yes, I would say that I agree with much of what you are saying, I wonder why this uncertainty is so hard to admit???? Is it a fear of thinking for oneself or just the desire to latch onto an explanatory model that allows us to justify our own beliefs and sleep better at night.
--exnihilo

Clutch

Don't get fussed, now. There's not much content to respond to in the OP, after all.

That the practice of science can in some measure be arational has nothing to do with the overwrought point about knowability. Indeed, it is strictly true that:This is because, in fact, even if Kuhn and co., are NOT correct, it seems "that there will always be a dark void of unknowing to which human capacities can never hope to understand."

At least, on one reading of "unknowing". (I'm setting aside the purple prose about dark voids and so forth.)

It is eminently plausible that some truths will never in fact be known. Call such a truth S. Then any conjunctive truth of the form [S and it will never be known that S] is unknowable, since knowing its first conjunct is inconsistent with the truth of the second. This is called the Paradox of Knowability, and dates back to a paper by Frederic Fitch in the early 1960's.

But this seems to have little to do with your remarks about the specific limits of "human capacities"; nor do those remarks derive any support from the observation that science is not perfectly rational. That's just a non-sequitur. You give no reason to take your claims seriously.

If you want substantive responses to your worry, why not frame it in the form of an actual argument -- premises, conclusion, that sort of thing?

exnihilo

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Clutch

Apparently there is enough to ruffle the feathers of more than a few--I notice that the type of kneejerk responses are a common response to even the mention of Feyerabend, lakatos or Kuhn.

It seems that in the zeal to refute Kuhn, the question has been lost. All I ever asked was whether or not people followed Kuhn, but more vitally, Feyerabend and Lakatos' conclussions, as oppossed to adhering to the belief that it was possible that science to ultimately achieve a universal theory of explanation.

The issue of truth or even Truth is an issue that I never raised and has little to do with the discussion at hand. For someone to be inclined to science using such an ephemeral term seems a paradox. Be that as it may, human capacities have everything to do with the limits of science. Sorry to say but science and its method is not some objective force that exists outside the realm of human control, it is, instead, simply a human construct. Scientists and their cheerleaders seem to want us to believe the niave assumption that The Scientific is in a special catagory, somehow sealed off from or impervious to the corrupting influences common to every other form of human endeavor. Scientists can't even agree on problems like whether or not global warming even exists, but we are suppossed to believe that Science can explain the laws that govern the entire universe?

--exnihilo

Celsus

I am reading Feyerabend at the moment, and will be moving on to Lakatos when I get the time. Can someone explain to me what Feyerabend's "counterinduction" really means? As far as I can tell, it's simply counterintuition... exnihilo: Have you tried Larry Laudan, Philip Kitcher and Michael Ruse yet?

Joel

leyline

Hi exnihilo

I have to admit that I have never read Kuhn directly, but only picked up some second hand interpretations and comments. But to your question

"My question is how many accept the notion of unknowability and how many believe that Kuhn and co., are ultimately wrong and think that science can indeed provide all the answers that we seek sometime in the future?"

I am firmly with Kuhn and co. I recognise unknowability as fundamental to human culture and that includes science. Of course knowability is also fundamental, the two go hand in hand, and that includes science too.

For me knowledge is a cultural relationship with reality (whatever that is). Different relationships yield different knowledge. I agree with the likes of Nietzsche that science is a useful fiction, and this is true of all culture from politics to religion to literature to sport or philosophy or whatever.

Science has several rather obvious limitations that are part and parcel of its wonderful powers of explanation and prediction. The first is that only phenomena that can be reliably called upon to move the needle of an ammeter can be commented upon. Of course those of the faith believe this is true of all phenomena, but the rest of us quite naturally think that this is an arbitrary limitation that could easily miss a lot of what is going on.

Secondly science cannot make any comment at all upon simultaneous relationship, other than it happens. The reason is that although such may be reliably called upon to move two ammeter needles, there is no possible rational explanation for two phenomena to change in relationship to each other simultaneously. (the best that science can do is offer a third �root� phenomena that causes both). This is because of the nature of rationality. Science is the search for the ultimate fixed rational text. This means that all terms in that text must be unambiguous. Or unpoetic. You cannot have two meanings going on at the same time in a rational explanation. It is linear and sequential. Song for example is no help to science in expressing itself. The cause effect chain is a one handed drummer. In fact science goes so far as to deny the existence of simultaneity in relativity and limits all interaction to the speed of light or less. Thus simultaneous relationship is impossible. But at present science is at odds with itself when it comes to Quantum Mechanics and there are serious moves to return to Einstein�s attitude that it is not a fundamental theory to get past simultaneity. For many of us however simultaneous relationship does not create such a negative reaction.

Thirdly randomness. Rationality believes in cause and effect and there is no room for randomness except as a stop gap to further explanation. Although some scientists are willing to believe that a cause may lead to a range of effects that are fully consistent with the laws of science, nevertheless such people are accepting a knowledge gap in science by doing so. Most scientists believe that that type of apparent phenomena is only an illusion. That randomness indicates a lack of scientific knowledge and nothing else. With further investigation a causal chain will predict exactly which effect will occur. In fact not to believe that would halt scientific investigation itself. But again such an extremist view feels restrictive to many outside the faith.

Science is driven by its search for the one to one relationship of a fixed text with the universe. For me knowledge is always a cultural relationship with reality.

Celsus

More Feyerabend:
To which we can add precision as a feature of good predictions (as opposed to, say, the Bible prophecies). I first read this stunning example from quantum electrodynamics (QED) in J.R. Brown's Who Rules in Science?: Schwinger, Tomonaga, and Feynman's prediction of the value of the magnetic moments of electron spin in 1948.

Feynman et al's predicted value was:

2 x 1.00115965246 (�0.00000000020) magnetons

The measurement made by Willis Lamb gave the value:

2 x 1.00115965221 (�0.00000000004) magnetons

Needless to say, Nobel prizes all round for this lot. Feynman described the accuracy of this as such: "If you were to measure the distance from Los Angeles to New York to this accuracy, it would be exact to the thickness of a human hair." This isn't just tarot card hustling.

Joel