Temporal kinetics and the creation of the universe

Brandon9000 wrote:

My point is that the people who created correct work in the hard sciences did it by proceeding from science and math. They knew the science and the math and worked with that and equations. They were not people ignorant of the hard sciences who proceeded from nothing but philosophy to correct science agreed upon later by the scientific community, at least not in the past couple of centuries.

Scientific work can be somewhat verified if entirely different approaches lead to the same equations, but, for the sake of simplicity, we can change it to "accepted by the world scientific community."

There simply were no people who, ignorant of physics, proceeded from philosophy alone and reached conclusions about the physical universe that were considered correct by the scientific community and matched results obtained by science.

You do realize that you "sound unhinged" just now, right? I mean:

Brandon9000 wrote:

My point is that the people who created correct work in the hard sciences did it by proceeding from science and math. They knew the science and the math and worked with that and equations.

That sounds like something straight out of Thomas Bernhard. *Self-high five for the Bernhard reference.*

Brandon9000 wrote:

There simply were no people who, ignorant of physics, proceeded from philosophy alone and reached conclusions about the physical universe that were considered correct by the scientific community and matched results obtained by science.

You, clearly, have no idea what "science", "physics", or "philosophy" are; and you certainly aren't in a position to determine who will investigate or comment on it, or what the value of their contributions will be.

What you think philosophy is...it's not that. What you think science is...it's not that, either. Wise the **** up.

..., by proceeding from philosophy alone

Bran I get the feeling--purely intuition, understand--that the issue is largely one of semantics

https://www.google.com/#nfpr=1&q=philosophical+speculation+leads+to+scientific+theory&spell=1

And your example of someone who succeeded in doing this?

Quote:

And your example of someone who succeeded in doing this?

"Einstein's philosophical thinking was driven by and contributed to the solution of problems first encountered in his work in physics."

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/einstein-philscience/

https://www.google.com/#q=philosophical+insight+leads+to+scientific+theory

http://able2know.org/topic/245921-1

Nah Bran, not at all in my league of expertise. I strongly suspect however that the issue is largely one of semantics. Also there's a certain dualism to the idea of philo on one hand and phys on the other, in a world where nothing is entirely anything while everything is partly something else

Good buddy MB replies to my q in this regard, "The binary method of computing, physically implemented by polarizing magnets, was contemplated by logic philosophers"

Thanks anyhow Bran for the chat

None of these are arguments. Attacking the poster is not a valid argument. Give me a counter example in which someone who didn't know physics produced a physics theory later accepted by the scientific community, by proceeding from philosophy alone.

Many laymen think things are outside the range of knowledge because they are unfamiliar with the field. If more is learned about the origins of the universe, it will be by physicists, certainly not by philosophers. What has philosophy ever given the world?

Civilization...

You could argue that, but I was talking about the world of physical science. Has philosophy without physics and mathematics ever resulted in a significant contribution to man's understanding of the universe in modern times?

"Ecological preservation might be a a good thing for both ourselves and other existing species?..."

"Space travel is possible?..."

"Man's understanding of the universe"... i think you may need to expand your definition of that phrase... Historically speaking, neither physics nor mathematics would have developed as they did without philosophy, and they only remain socially influential for philosophical reasons. Of course, physics and mathematics are important, as aspects of humanity's pursuit of knowledge and truth...

Tell me a case in which a philosopher working without physics contributed something to modern scientific theory.

That would ridiculous...there's no such thing, although there are a couple of biologists i could mention. But the fact of the matter is, they didn't oppose physics, theoretical or otherwise. their theories just didn't touch upon that discipline.

i'm not arguing against the validity/value of modern theoretical physics, i'm arguing against the irrelevance of philosophical thinking by physicists, among others.

They aren't mutually exclusive types of study...

Brandon9000 wrote:

Philosophy has never contributed anything to science. When used to speculate about nature, it's just a refuge for people too lazy to take the science classes. If you disagree, find a counter-example.

Your ignorance and classificatorial rigidity are adorable. Your knowledge of the history of science, i.e. natural philosophy, is embarrassing. Here are some, not so random, names: Isaac Newton, Ernst Mach, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Douglas Hofstadter...(Leonardo da Vinci, maybe)

Brandon9000 wrote:

What is the track record for philosophers in finding verifiably correct facts about the formation of the universe? Would that be zero?

What standard for "verifiability" are you using? By most standards, no one has verifiably correct facts about the formation of the universe...there are mathematically reliable theories, though.

My point is that the people who created correct work in the hard sciences did it by proceeding from science and math. They knew the science and the math and worked with that and equations. They were not people ignorant of the hard sciences who proceeded from nothing but philosophy to correct science agreed upon later by the scientific community, at least not in the past couple of centuries.

Scientific work can be somewhat verified if entirely different approaches lead to the same equations, but, for the sake of simplicity, we can change it to "accepted by the world scientific community."

There simply were no people who, ignorant of physics, proceeded from philosophy alone and reached conclusions about the physical universe that were considered correct by the scientific community and matched results obtained by science.

Your ignorance and classificatorial rigidity are adorable. Your knowledge of the history of science, i.e. natural philosophy, is embarrassing. Here are some, not so random, names: Isaac Newton, Ernst Mach, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Douglas Hofstadter...(Leonardo da Vinci, maybe)

Brandon9000 wrote:

What is the track record for philosophers in finding verifiably correct facts about the formation of the universe? Would that be zero?

What standard for "verifiability" are you using? By most standards, no one has verifiably correct facts about the formation of the universe...there are mathematically reliable theories, though.

None of these are arguments. Attacking the poster is not a valid argument. Give me a counter example in which someone who didn't know physics produced a physics theory later accepted by the scientific community, by proceeding from philosophy alone.

dalehileman wrote:

Quote:

And your example of someone who succeeded in doing this?

"Einstein's philosophical thinking was driven by and contributed to the solution of problems first encountered in his work in physics."

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/einstein-philscience/

https://www.google.com/#q=philosophical+insight+leads+to+scientific+theory

http://able2know.org/topic/245921-1

Obviously not the question asked. Can you give the name of someone during the past couple of centuries who arrived at important new results in the area usually worked on by physicists, without education in physics, using philosophy alone?

None of these are arguments. Attacking the poster is not a valid argument. Give me a counter example in which someone who didn't know physics produced a physics theory later accepted by the scientific community, by proceeding from philosophy alone.

Give me a counter example in which someone who didn't know physics produced a physics theory later accepted by the scientific community, by proceeding from philosophy alone.

Oh Jeeze, Brandon, that's too easy. Physicists have long insisted that it is not possible to speak with one's anal sphincter. Razzleg has been talking out of his ass for as long as he's been here. Quod erat demonstrandum . . .

....You treat physics as both a given discipline and a given degree without a history or a relation to any philosophical precedents; here's a counter example that precedes either category: Ἐρατοσθένης...

I'm not very familiar with the life of Eratosthenes. I know that he lived at a time when most of physics, chemistry, and biology did not exist. I know that he arrived at some valid conclusions. Since he is your choice as an example, let me simply ask you, what is one example of him arriving at a valid understanding of nature by means of philosophy alone? I Googled him and nothing like that jumped out at me.

Brandon9000 wrote:

I'm not very familiar with the life of Eratosthenes. I know that he lived at a time when most of physics, chemistry, and biology did not exist. I know that he arrived at some valid conclusions. Since he is your choice as an example, let me simply ask you, what is one example of him arriving at a valid understanding of nature by means of philosophy alone? I Googled him and nothing like that jumped out at me.

You're killing me. Do you think endlessly repeating variations of the same question regardless of the response you receive is an argument? It's not, that's a freakin' koan.

As far as Eratosthenes goes, a quick googling will probably reveal everything that is known about the man. i brought him up as an example, because he made near accurate predictions about the physical world centuries before the dawn of the empirical method.

His existence shows that the definitions of science and philosophy are mutable, as is the definition of what counts as science and what counts as philosophy.

Erastosthenes method for accurate predictions about the physical world came from employing ratios and trigonometry, not philosophy. Or they came from, well, observing the world and taking note of other observations before him.

And even if some philosopher X made an assertion about the world that turned out to be somehow true, that would be pure chance. Democritus and Lucretius had no way of perceiving the existence of atoms, and yet they definitely speculated that the world is composed of something like them.

The point is that philosophers cannot, by some a priori ratiocination or other similar means, arrive at truths of the world. And even if they did, even if they did, it would be by pure chance. You have to actually observe the world, control and test it.

Philosophy has never contributed anything to science. When used to speculate about nature, it's just a refuge for people too lazy to take the science classes. If you disagree, find a counter-example.

Tell me a case in which a philosopher working without physics contributed something to modern scientific theory.

Razzleg wrote:

His existence shows that the definitions of science and philosophy are mutable, as is the definition of what counts as science and what counts as philosophy.

So what? We are talking about physics and philosophy as they are now. Don't drop the context. Even if the definitions are mutable, which I agree they are, that doesn't change the fact that we have current definitions that we need to use.

And there is no definition of what counts as science or philosophy, there are criterion, which fall under the definitions of science and philosophy. For example, Philosophy is, "the method of... that deals with...".

Brandon9000 wrote:

I'm not very familiar with the life of Eratosthenes. I know that he lived at a time when most of physics, chemistry, and biology did not exist. I know that he arrived at some valid conclusions. Since he is your choice as an example, let me simply ask you, what is one example of him arriving at a valid understanding of nature by means of philosophy alone? I Googled him and nothing like that jumped out at me.

You're killing me. Do you think endlessly repeating variations of the same question regardless of the response you receive is an argument? It's not, that's a freakin' koan.

As far as Eratosthenes goes, a quick googling will probably reveal everything that is known about the man. i brought him up as an example, because he made near accurate predictions about the physical world centuries before the dawn of the empirical method. His existence shows that the definitions of science and philosophy are mutable, as is the definition of what counts as science and what counts as philosophy.

Breakthrough in Quantum Physics May Do Away with Space-Time

Quote:

Breakthrough in Quantum Physics May Do Away with Space-Time

Sept 2o13
http://www.simonsfoundation.org/quanta/20130917-a-jewel-at-the-heart-of-quantum-physics/