Rusting Car Bumper

Bravo on your response.

DC

[ October 15, 2002: Message edited by: DigitalChicken ]</p>

Starboy

Do you not understand what I mean when I use the word nature? Clutch, are you suggesting that nature is not the final arbiter of science? If it is not then are you saying that science has no final arbiter? Do you think that I exclude intuition from science? A scientist may use any process they wish to come to a conclusion. Whatever that conclusion is, it must work in nature. Do you disagree with this? If it required that scientific conclusions must work in nature doesn’t that make nature the final arbiter? Or do you deny the existence of nature? Perhaps this is yet another difference between science and philosophy, science assumes that nature exists whereas philosophy leaves it as an open question?

Please read my post carefully. Two arguments logically argued with no reason to choose one over the other. Logic can no longer be the arbiter, so what does philosophy appeal to, intuition or fashion? If it appealed to nature it would no longer be philosophy, it would be science. Clutch perhaps you are not aware of this, but any argument is only as good as its assumptions. The only grist for the philosophical mill is the subjective observations of philosophers or reports from the scientists on the front lines of reality. Your example of quantum logic is an excellent example. If left to philosophers it would not exist. It was from the insistence of scientists that it was understood that reality is more complex then can be imagined by philosophers. So much for philosophy, a human endeavor that hasn’t produced much new in the last two thousand years.

Starboy

[ October 15, 2002: Message edited by: Starboy ]</p>

Clutch

Thanks for the kind words, DC. Apologies for the misunderstanding. Implicature is a bitch!

[ October 15, 2002: Message edited by: Clutch ]</p>

Rusting Car Bumper

I actually made a typo. I meant to say "your response." I corrected it.

DC

Clutch

No, and I don't think you do, either. But here's what I mean by nature: reality, what exists, what is the case. And my point, which you have tried to evade by strawman diversions, is that science does not get direct access to reality. It produces data, the interpretation of which is almost never beyond dispute. Settling such disputes is often a deeply philosophical endeavour on the part of scientists.
I'm saying, not suggesting, that nature itself, as opposed to data, is not any sort of arbiter. Nor have you given any argument to think that there is one "final" arbiter of science. Certainly it does not look like there is -- the various kinds of "fit" between theory and data, discipline-specific considerations of what sort of simplicity or elegance is the most important, a sense of which of several anomalies is the worst, when considering which of several imperfect theories should be taken as a working hypothesis... decisions on any of these matters can be "arbiters" in science, and each of them can remain wide open subsequent to the collection of the data itself. There is no "the" arbiter. Yes, that's what I'm saying, pro tem. (It's possible that some algorithm taking account of all of the considerations I mentioned, and many more besides, is formulable to function as a single general decision procedure for what conclusions to draw from the data in every case, in every science. But there's no reason to believe it.) I have no idea. Why don't you clearly tell us? I think what you mean to say, or what you ought to say whether you mean it or not, is that scientific reasoning issues in predictions or other sorts of descriptions of observations; and that these must match what is in fact observed. This is correct. It also describes philosophy. When a philosophical argument concludes that P, but our best observations of the world indicate that not-P, then the reasoning is (usually) rejected. There is no clear distinction with science here. I could discuss this question/comment/ridiculous straw man at length. But I won't.

Aside from a sophomoric false dichotomy, was there a point here? It's all rather cryptic; logic can "no longer be the arbiter"? Of what? Since when? Something in the newspapers I missed? What does fashion have to do with anything, except as an absurd straw man?
Hey, good one! But since that's exactly the point in contention, and exactly what you have failed to argue for, I'm afraid that introducing it as an assumption is rather less than compelling. By contrast, I have argued that philosophy has used and widely continues to depend on observations about nature.
On the contrary, I take this very seriously. For instance, see the previous point, where I discuss your confusion between an assumption of the very point at issue and an argument for that point. There's a fine irony in arguing that philosophy is a matter of gut feeling and subjective impressions, and hence fails to make intellectual progress, when your argument is based solely on gut feeling and subjective impressions, and hence fails to make any intellectual progress. But in some sense you are close to correct, and are affirming one of my points. Most of the empirical data (rather than "intuition") that philosophers take into account is nowadays generated by specific sciences. Philosophers rarely generate, eg, experimental results. Of course, this has effectively nothing to do with whether responsibility to the empirical data is what distinguishes science from philosophy, however. Yes. It demonstrates how even the philosophy of logic -- a venture with aprioristic overtones if there is one -- takes account of and is responsible to our best empirical science. If left to biologists, it wouldn't exist either. Was there a point here? Since many of these scientists were themselves philosophers, you have set up a nice violation of the Law of Identity here. More to the point, you again parade nothing more than your ill-informed prejudices by pronouncing absurdities about the imaginative abilities of philosophers. Creationist logic: As long as I'm relentlessly ignorant of it, it doesn't count.

Starboy

Gee Clutch, what crawled up your philosophical hole? I am not trying to evade your point. I can see the clarity of your thought. WTF is “direct” access to reality? Are you suggesting that unless you can perform a Vulcan mind meld with the universe that explorations of reality are futile?

Clutch, your ignorance is showing. “Data” is the byproduct of experiment. Clutch, you know what experiment is, don’t you? Experiment creates data, but it IS NOT data. It is the act of a scientist interacting with nature. But it could be that as a philosopher you have not heard of these things called experiments. You should try it some time. It is a very humbling experience.

I think you are confusing the creation and validation of scientific theory with the interpretation of scientific theory. There has been a great deal of philosophizing over the interpretation of scientific theories. Funny thing about these, at the end of the day, you end up where you started. The whole philosophical exercise just points out the obvious limitations of trying to use common sense to understand that which is not common to our senses.

You are an excellent example of what I mean when I say that philosophers are reality challenged. “Data” is the result of experiment. Experiment is as direct a contact with nature as can be devised. Scientists are not allowed to pull “data” out of their a**es as do philosophers. And unlike philosophers, they must actually perform experiments, and these experiments must be repeatable by others (just in case you don’t know this Clutch, this is the objective component of science).

In the case where there are competing scientific theories the first criteria of selection is experiment with nature, then simplicity or elegance. If it is a choice between an elegant theory and one that predicts experiment with nature, guess which one wins out? Gee Clutch, looks like nature is the arbiter of science.

Perhaps you confuse the difficulty with experiment and interpretation of data with the decision procedure of science. There is no doubt that nature is a difficult thing to explore. Experiments are usually difficult to perform and the result is often equivocal. Add to this, data must often rely on theory for interpretation. I have been there. I understand how difficult it is. But it doesn’t matter, because if there is a controversy, it will be experiment that will eventually decide it. Perhaps not definitively at first, but it will be done with experiment on nature nonetheless. Again, nature is the arbiter of science.

Science is not exactly like a battle. It is true that in battle there is poor and conflicting information arriving all the time. But unlike a battle, in science a decision doesn’t need to be made immediately. Science can wait until better information arrives, or there is enough information to rule out the conflicting data, it can even change past decisions based on new information. But do not forget Clutch where this information comes from, experiment on nature. Scientists don’t get to just dream it up like philosophers.

Gee Clutch, I would have thought that one as knowledgeable in the ways of science as you would know the answer to this one. That it would be unnecessary to repeat such a well-known aspect of science. Make a note of this Clutch; the scientific method makes no restrictions on what the source of the hypothesis is (dreams, poetry, wife, thinking, intuition, whatever). It only makes the requirement that it has predictive power and can be tested by experiment in nature. I doesn’t even have to agree with existing theory, though that is usually hoped for. No matter what the source of the hypothesis or how well it fits with the current understanding of nature, if it isn’t confirmed by experiment in nature then it is busted. Gee Clutch, again it is nature as the arbiter of science.

Be still my heart. Clutch, are you admitting in your obtuse, backhanded and aggressive manner that perhaps experiment in nature is the arbiter of science?

I find your second statement to be very whimsical. You seem to imply that when philosophers finally get to a conclusion they rush to the laboratory to see if it matches with reality. Where do you do philosophy? The only place I have seen philosophers rush to is publication.

Clutch, you make my point so eloquently. What better example of what makes philosophy different from science? You see, a scientist would say that nature exists, but a philosopher could go either way. A scientist has to say that nature exists because he gets his data from experiments on nature and that is what he uses as an arbiter in scientific disputes. Since a philosopher has no such requirement, they have no need to answer this question and as a result do not need a firm grip on reality.

Clutch, I will not even try sophomoric false dichotomies when I am presented with such an advanced specimen as you. You imply that there are no disputes in philosophy? Is that the case? Or are you the only argumentative disagreeable philosopher in the world? Do all the rest just agree with each other? In the off chance that there might be two or more philosophers such as you in the world, how do you settle disputes? Do you engage in mindless insults such as I have witnessed in your posts? Is there a philosophy fashion show? I haven’t seen any philosophers in the lab, so it couldn’t be experiment in nature. How do you pithy and witty philosophers do it?

Clutch, your grasp of argument is staggering. If you state it, it becomes an argument. If I state it, it becomes a sophomoric false dichotomy. Philosophers are amazing. Us poor old scientist rely on plain old statements based in nature instead of snappy put-downs. I am beginning to see how philosophy is done. The most obnoxious and rude philosopher wins. You must be a great philosopher Clutch.

Clutch, I see where I have gone wrong. Being a scientist it is hard to understand just how reality challenged a philosopher can be. When a scientist speaks of nature to another scientist, they understand each other, to them nature is not a concept but something very palpable, that is because they are buried in reality. To a reality dabbler such as a philosopher, I can see where the term might not be clear.

Clutch, again your grasp of philosophical argument is breath taking. I now see that in philosophy, to make your point it is unnecessary to argue your point directly and clearly. All that is necessary is to attack the opposing point of view. Clutch you wouldn’t happen to be religious as well as a philosopher. Your style is reminiscent of many of the fundies that frequent these boards.

Clutch, be proud to be a philosopher. Don’t stoop to the level of those materialist scientists. Where would philosophy be if it could not constantly make the point that we really do not know if reality exists. You can’t have it both ways, if you are a scientist you assume reality exists, if you are philosopher it is open for debate.

Clutch, what are you talking about? Last time I checked, there were no philosophers involved with the discovery of QM. Is this yet another fine example of philosophical argument?

Clutch, your pattern of philosophical argument is becoming clear to me. Are you a fundie?

Clutch, you seem to want to claim that all scientists are philosophers. Why not just admit that philosophy is lame and become a scientist. Oops, I forgot, you are too reality challenged to be a scientist.

My point exactly, why don’t you philosophers get out more and learn about actual reality instead of philosophical reality.

Starboy

Primal

Well obviosuly in every discussion each side has what it considers it's ultimate standard(s). Whether or not it is actually "intuition" is open to debate though. What about empirical or logical or mathematical questions?

All epistemolgies come down to axioms, the fundamental standards or concept. For me it's not intuition though but self-evident truths. How do they differ? Well intuition is more of a feeling, whereas a self-evident standard is something qualitatively different, it is something necessary for a rational process.

My intuitions for example have been shown to be wrong countless times. But the Law of Identity has never been shown to be wrong.

Clutch

Starboy, I demolished your views with a rhetorically heavy hand myself; hence I will try not to take too much offense at the disgraceful discharge of bile you have just produced, even though yours goes unaccompanied by any argument.

I begin by recalling the point here. My claim is that the boundaries between science and philosophy are blurry, and that while there are clear examples of each that could not be confused for the other, there is no one criterion that neatly separates the two. Hence the criterion of "reliance on intuition", whatever it is supposed to mean, does not limn the distinction. Nor is a focus on empirical data a good divider, since it fails in both directions: (i) the scientific interpretation and use of empirical data involves much that is philosophical, and (ii), philosophy frequently depends upon and is responsible to empirical results and theories.

Your response to (i) is a series of non-sequiturs and risible straw men. Your response to (ii) is simply to present your ill-informed prejudices about philosophy as if they had some probative value.
Are you suggesting that 2+2=5? Are you really claiming that the Earth rests on a tortoise? And could you possibly argue without resorting to this sort of absurd straw man? That there is no direct access to reality was exactly my point. Why are you making such heavy weather over it? (Or, as now seems the case, accepting it while trying to project a string of perverse straw men on me.)

My very basic point: science deals in data that require interpretation by processes that are themselves frequently philosophical, and not in some direct access to nature. It is telling that you equate this with the claim that "explorations of reality are futile". Your being wrong is not actually the same as science being futile, though.
Was there a point here, besides your attempt to insult me? Experiments generate data; excellent, well said. This data is then used in the construction or testing of a theory about what the experiment was doing -- how, as some have put, the experiment intervened in nature. This produces a model of what that particular corner of nature itself is like. This impinges on my point how, exactly? It sounds like my own view. If you think it refutes something I've said, maybe you could, like, give an actual argument, with premises and conclusion.

Could you be moved to argue for this, or even to show why this is a relevant charge to anything I have said?
The bulk of your post consists of such rationally vacuous and tedious utterances; I will not quote them, by and large.
This is my point. It's good that you have now taken it on board.
Please do show where I have said, or even suggested, that scientists "pull “data” out of their a**es". Then, when you've retracted this strawman, spend some time reflecting on the fact that the only person here manifestly pulling "data" out his a** is you. (Especially your remarkable manufacture of data about what philosophers do, and can do.) By your standards, that makes you a philosopher and not a scientist. Luckily for philosophy, your standards are yours alone.
Straw man, and a hopelessly simplistic generalization. As I pointed out, philosophers do not normally run experiments nowadays (though they are not infrequently involved in them, especially in the cognitive sciences). So there is no obvious point to your asserting this as if it was news. Plenty of scientists, however, including most theoretical physicists, are not scientists by your criterion. What was the last real experiment that Lee Smolin ran? Roger Penrose? Have they stopped being physicists? Of course, empirical data play a crucial role in their work, but it looks like these guys are just relying on "reports from the scientists on the front lines of reality", as you correctly but awkwardly say philosophers typically do. So theoretical physicists are not scientists? Again, no single criterion --including your fixation with experiment -- is apt to neatly distinguish science from philosophy. And it has exactly nothing to do with my point, which is about philosophy's frequent use of, and dependence on, empirical data.
No, it does not look like that. It looks like science is much more complicated than that. As I have already pointed out -- not that you've shown any tendency to talk about my actual arguments -- decisions about comparative elegance, ranking of anomalies, parsimony, and many things I can't get into but will summarize under the broad umbrella of "consilience", all assume a body of data. Your question "If it is a choice between an elegant theory and one that predicts experiment with nature, guess which one wins out?" simply demonstrates your poor grasp of the issue: the choice in such cases is not between elegance-with-no-predictive-or-descriptive-accuracy and accuracy-with-no-degree-of-elegance. As you seem to half-suggest, the interesting cases are between two equally empirically adequate theories, or nearly so, that propose different mechanisms, or which leave different phenomena unexplained, or which dovetail with other theories in different ways. So, eg, in adopting a working hypothesis, one might choose between a cognitive model of word-recognition that proposes only feature-detection mechanisms, but does not explain all observed interference effects, and one that explains the interference effects, but implicates general reasoning capacities that amount to a "homonculus", or, as a programmer, would say, a kludge. This decision assumes a common body of data -- nature itself does not decide the matter, in the event. Of course, one does further experiments designed to yield data providing differential support for one or the other theory. In the light of the new data, there will be new interpretive decisions that in turn assume the data in hand. Your picture of the data just deciding things is impossibly simple.
Again, you simply parade your prejudice. Do you have an argument that philosophers "dream up" information? Galileo, Einstein and many other scientists have made key use of imagination and thought-experiments, if that's what you mean. But since you simply make this sweeping "dreaming up" accusation without explanation, evidence or argument, I am left to conjecture about what meaning, if any, it is supposed to bear.

R-e-a-d. I am not knowledgeable about what your thoughts are.

Nor did my exhortation succeed in getting you to explain what you mean by "intuition". However, you are now saying that science uses it, whatever it is. So what was this sharp dividing line between science and philosophy?

Since I have argued that no single thing is "the" arbiter of science -- returning, again, to the actual content of my writing -- I could hardly be claiming this. Did you have some point (besides the now customary spew of insult)?
Since you really don't know much about philosophy, this comes as no surprise. Just this morning I was reading Paul Horwich's philosophical discussion of the possibility of time travel, based on Godel's discovery of solutions to the field equations of GR that permit closed causal chains. For the nth time: Philosophy frequently depends upon and is responsible to empirical theory and data. Philosophers rarely "rush to the lab"; but many do keep an eye on the journals in the relevant science to see whether any results have shed light on, or weighed against, a view that they support. If you don't know this, fine. But why confuse your ignorance for some essential property of philosophy itself?

Is there a pill you can take to help with your irony-deficiency? Read it again. What I could have discussed at length was the absurdity of your straw man. I mean, really!
Going by your own data about philosophy here, it appears that by "data" you mean "stuff you make up because it's easier than learning about it". I don't think science does that, though.

You state that philosophical disputes are settled by intuition or by fashion. I point out that this is a false dichotomy. (They are often settled by empirical fact.) Your retort: "You imply that there are no disputes in philosophy?"

How do you make this stuff up?
You, personally, have not seen any philosophers in a lab; therefore, philosophers do not often settle disputes by appeal to best empirical theory. Is there any non-sequitur too jaw-dropping for you to use?

Still more straw men, and this time so transparent as to be baffling. Where do I mention discovery? You just quoted me, for pete's sake; I am talking about the respects in which philosophy "takes account of and is responsible to our best empirical science", as I have done all along. How much clearer could I have been about this?

Your changes of topic and confabulation of bizarre straw men make clear that there is now not even a whiff of honest debate about you.

Again, I have given actual arguments for my points, citing examples and nodding to the complexities I cannot address when they come up. You have railed, ranted, and offered your prejudice as data. If you cannot be bothered to learn something about philosophy, though, at least learn something about science. You are purporting to speak for one of humanity's greatest endeavours; in the unlikely event that anyone took you seriously, the poverty of your approach and your pride in your ignorance would cast shame on science.

[ October 16, 2002: Message edited by: Clutch ]</p>

Starboy

Clutch,

I shall give you the opportunity to once more show your brilliant philosophical abilities by presenting more of my views for you to "demolish". But before I begin could the great philosopher please be kind enough to confirm my understanding of this:

As I see it your stated position is:

1. – Claim – The boundaries between science and philosophy are “blurry”
2. – Claim – There is no one criterion that neatly separates science from philosophy.

To support claim 1 and 2 you present the following statements
1. – Statement – Scientists use philosophy when interpreting empirical data.
2. – Statement – Philosophers frequently use scientific results in their work.

Is this correct or do you care to elaborate? Are you saying that there is no distinction between science and philosophy? Or just no distinction you are aware of?

Starboy

[ October 16, 2002: Message edited by: Starboy ]</p>

Clutch

Pointing out obvious straw men and arguments from ignorance requires neither greatness nor brilliance. Thank you for the kind compliments, though.

You might notice that I have already elaborated. Why ask for more detail, or invite a more careful or nuanced expression of my view, when you just quoted one? And having just quoted one, why immediately oversimplify things? It's shaping up to be yet another straw man...
Bingo! The straw stuffer performs the only trick he knows.

How many times now have I explicitly stated that there is obviously a difference between science and philosophy, but not one with a tidy boundary apt to be marked by a single criterion?

From my first post on the thread, the first reply to elwoodblues: From my last post, a comment that you have just quoted!

And then your "request for clarification" -- let's see it again, now...

Until you start approaching this with some semblance of honesty -- a cornerstone of science -- there is no point in taking you seriously.

[ October 16, 2002: Message edited by: Clutch ]</p>