Objective Knowledge

Not being argumentative but curious.

fresco wrote:

1. Natural science aims at universal as opposed to statistical laws.

I thought at least to some degree quantum mechanics counters this as it maintains a level of probability/unpredictability i.e. the uncertainty principle.

wikipedia wrote:

For moving particles in quantum mechanics, there is simply a certain degree of exactness and precision that is missing. You can be precise when you take a measurement of position and you can be precise when you take a measurement of momentum, but there is an inverse imprecision when you try to measure both at the same time as in the case of a moving particle like the electron. In the most extreme case, absolute precision of one variable would entail absolute imprecision regarding the other.

fresco wrote:

2. It tends to use the relatively culture free metalanguage of mathematics.

Which brings up a question I asked earlier (but got covered in the dust of Joe v. fresco et al):

Chumly wrote:

The hard sciences have moved away from reliance on traditional language, is there perhaps a better system to express non-dualistic perspectives? Surely it must have at least been attempted, and that's in part why I made the tongue in cheek reference as per

Chumly wrote:

Asimovian Psychohistory and ol' Hari Seldon

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

Hi Joe, thanks man!
1) If one were to argue that even the realty of science is nothing more than consensus, then what's to stop consensus from changing reality as (for example) some religionists would perhaps have me believe?

Well, under fresco's position, there's no "reality" to change, so that's a non-issue. I'll add that, under what may be termed an "objectivist" approach, a change in science doesn't change reality either. For the objectivist, the earth still orbited the sun when everyone believed that the sun orbited the earth. It's just that everyone who believed in the Ptolemaic-geocentric theory was wrong. For fresco, the competing theories don't represent reality at all: they just describe different "conversational domains."

Chumly wrote:

2) As a not wholly improbable future scenario, what if Man were to meet an alien race, and this race's perception of science appeared (but was not in fact) in some manner different than Man's perception.

For example: Mans' perception is that lead has the highest atomic number of all stable elements. However let's assume Man's perception (in error) of the alien race's perception of lead was that lead has the second highest atomic number of all stable elements.

How would the simple perception (in error) by Man of the alien race's differing scientific view change earth bound chemical reactions, or for that matter the alien's home world chemical reactions?

Again, for fresco, the alien science and the human science would simply be two competing arguments. The most we could say is that the earth science is "correct" for those who believe that lead has the highest atomic number of all stable elements, while the alien science is "correct" for those who believe that lead has the second-highest atomic number of all stable elements. That's not because the human theory or the alien theory actually describe reality, but rather because, within the "conversational domains" of those theories, there is a consensus that lead has either the highest or second-highest atomic number.

Meanwhile, lead, as an element, wouldn't change. The objectivist would explain that the reason lead doesn't change when a "paradigm shift" occurs is because the rejected theory about lead was wrong. That's why the earth didn't start revolving around the sun only when Copernicus came along. On the other hand, fresco would explain that lead doesn't change because nobody is arguing that lead changed.

0 Replies

Interesting stuff much thanks!

The modest twist I included was that it's not two competing arguments in actuality (I think fresco missed this too).

Man made an error in his belief that the alien race's perception of lead was that lead has the second highest atomic number, and Man is unaware of this error. There is in fact consensus about lead, but not according to Man's perception as discussed "However let's assume Man's perception (in error) of the alien race's perception of lead was that lead has the second highest atomic number of all stable elements."

Does that change your views, or your views of fresco's views as the case may be?

0 Replies

Chumly,

I am highly conscious of the unique position of QM in the sciences as being a major exception to "universal rules"! Indeed this is a key player in the overthrow of naive realism. However when talking about generalities like "natural science" and "probabity of consensus" QM is the exception which proves the rule.

The point about your "lead" argument is that its another of those seminar scenarios. Presumably if communication has been established at the level of "atomic number" and "elements" then the semantic dynamics of ordination within such common nominal sets has also been established. (Nominal=naming, Ordinal=Ordering). Your scenario implies something like "humans and aliens both have elephants but theirs have no trunks",
which would clearly mitigate against effective communication.

Interestingly anthropology is full of examples of differential segmentation of the world amongst humans which could be a barrier to communication. I think it was the Hopi who have different words for "water you can drink" and "water you can cross" which separated them as "different substances" in Hopi usage reified by taboos over drinking from the second. In Western tradition we have the celebrated example of a difference perceived between "the morning star" and "the evening star" which later both turned out to be the planet Venus,

0 Replies

Thanks fresco!

I've in fact never been to a seminar, let alone contemplated what might be a scenario found at a seminar, nor for that matter have I attended university. It was simply a thought I had that suited the moment given I enjoy reading science fiction and take an unassuming interest in the sciences.

FWIW however I have read widely in the Science Fiction genre as it relates to:

Hard Science Fiction
Theological Science Fiction
Philosophical Science Fiction

Some might prefer the term SF (Speculative Fiction) as the word science really is only most applicable in Hard Science Fiction where extrapolation of present scientific concepts is at the least given fair credence.

In any case, the concept of quantum mechanics as it relates to philosophy is not wholly unknown to me although doubtless I approach it from a different and more casual perspective than you.

0 Replies

Chumly,

I enjoy the Startrek situations which often have interesting philosophical themes. The major reservation I have is with that "universal translator" which has most of the aliens (and even Picard) speaking "American". The writers are aware of this "problem" and tried to cover it with that episode involving "Temba...His arms open wide...etc".

We tend forget that what we call "science" is in the main less than 300 years old. The idea of "chemical elements" only recently superceded that of the four "ancient elements" (earth,air,fire, water). Particle physics has now pushed the "reality of chemistry" into particular functional niches involved with manufacturing. We may thinkchemicals are more "real" than "quarks" because we can "experience them" without artificial transducers....but that is merely reflective of the nature of our "physiology" and vice versa....physiology and chemistry are co-existent and co-extensive even if we like to think of them as separate issues (a bit like the differentiation of "matter" and "energy" which Einstein resolved by E=MC^2).

So who can say what "alien science" might contain or whether we would have the mental capacity to understand it ? I can almost hear those aliens rolling about in laughter when they find out we still use "chemical elements" !

0 Replies

You might like Philip K Dick or James Blish for some aspects of Philosophical / Theological SF or you might like Gregory Benford or David Brin for aspects of Hard SF.

0 Replies

Thanks, I'll look out for those.

0 Replies

Re: Objective Knowledge

Chumly wrote:

If validity is not a function of probability, by what set of criteria would one assess the social sciences, psychology, metaphysics, or theology to have (presumable) validity (equivalent or otherwise)?

Validity is a function of probability.
Reality is a function of probability.
Everything is a function of probability.

0 Replies

I agree with rosborne, althouth probability may be subjective.

0 Replies

Yes, Ros, that sounds right: we live in a probabilistic universe, and the probabilities have to do with relationships.

Fresco, I loved that Startrek episode too. It constructed a culture in which it was painfully obvious--to us--that language and thought had to do with the METAPHORIZATION of the life experience. Captain Kirk's problem, as I recall, was that he could not decipher the meanings of his opponent's language because he did not know the CONVENTIONAL meanings expressed by his metaphors.
Our problem is that we forget the metaphorical nature of our language and consequently our life experience. We think that our words are nothing but little mirrors or pictures of their referents (the linguistic theory of the naive realist).

0 Replies

JLN,

http://rec.horus.at/trek/lists/darmok.html

Smile

0 Replies

Are most of you saying that data can only be evaluated by degrees of probability? Nothing is absolutely true?

0 Replies

I am not much for giving answers on this topic but I'll happily pose this question:

How could it not be absolutely true that my dog (I had as a pet when I was a child) is dead? I don't mean to argue consensus and I don't mean to argue proof I mean to argue how could it be otherwise?

0 Replies

I suppose probabilism has to do with prediction. We can only predict the future relations between "variables" probabilistically because we cannot know precisely what factors will be involved. We cannot have future knowledge of such factors because they simply havn't occured yet; they are not present knowledge.

0 Replies

wandeljw

From the "scientific" point of view it is the "falsifiability principle" which has been cited to test the status of a theory. It doesn't matter how often an object "falls" to earth, tomorrow there's still a (slight) chance it may not.

It goes without saying that we all operate expecting relative "certainty" for "gravity" etc and most of our activities, otherwise we would be immobilized with neuroticism. Concepts of "truth" don't arise except in the "cognitive decision mode" which is a discussion (self with self or self with others). Some discussions about "truth" are formalized in courtrooms......"Did X kill Y, true or false ?" Even if X pleads "guilty" along comes a negotiator who might argue " it wasn't the "real X" because the balance of his mind was disturbed" etc. In other words "truth" is about what to do next after the discussion. It is functional not objective. "Facts" always serve "purposes" even if that purpose is as trivial as answering a quiz or examination. Facts are part of the dynamics of biological and social interaction and are subservient to organizational needs.

Chumly,

Your dog still "exists" in your memory.....I am renogiating the concept of "death" with you as an exercise.....spiritualists might argue it is more than an exercise. In essence "death" is about what the living do next.

0 Replies

When I say the universe is a probabilistic phenomenon I am being very slipshod, of course. In one sense it may be thought (wrongly or correctly, I don't know) that this probabilism is some kind of "ontological" characteristic of the universe. That seems to be what some physicists are claiming. I'm not clear on it.
And it might be that "probabilism" has to do mainly with methodology, with the "epistemological" matter of knowing/predicting the future. This would seem to give great weight to a linear notion of time. In this model the future doesn't exist yet, so it cannot be predicted with certainty as I suggested earlier. But what about the past? If we assume that the past is is really done, then knowledge of it (to the extent that our recording methods are infalliable) is absolute. I'm thinking of Chumly's dog. I believe the most "awesome" thing about the death of our loved ones is the irreversibility of it.

0 Replies

Even the past written history is not error free, but there are some information that we may use that has probabilistic future use. That man has the opportunity to learn from the past doesn't insure that it will.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

Interesting stuff much thanks!

The modest twist I included was that it's not two competing arguments in actuality (I think fresco missed this too).

Man made an error in his belief that the alien race's perception of lead was that lead has the second highest atomic number, and Man is unaware of this error. There is in fact consensus about lead, but not according to Man's perception as discussed "However let's assume Man's perception (in error) of the alien race's perception of lead was that lead has the second highest atomic number of all stable elements."

Does that change your views, or your views of fresco's views as the case may be?

No, doesn't change them at all. From the realist/objectivist perspective, differences of opinion can be explained by the fact that one opinion or both are wrong. That's not an option for fresco, but it's not necessary when everyone is allowed to be right in their own way.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

How could it not be absolutely true that my dog (I had as a pet when I was a child) is dead? I don't mean to argue consensus and I don't mean to argue proof I mean to argue how could it be otherwise?

There is a philosophical possibility that all of us perceive reality incorrectly. There is a possibility that your memory it totally wrong. There is the possibility that your dog never existed (and neither did mine), and that nothing really exists.

It's possible. But it's not probable.

(now I guess we will have to discuss how we measure probability in cases of philosophical awareness)

0 Replies

Objective Knowledge

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know