Science does not describe reality: 2

[Into the Night]

The BidenWannabe still has not yet figure out that censorship doesn't work. Bring yet another thread out for open discussion.

The OP:

Bas van Fraassen | Bas van Fraassen is Professor of Philosopher of Philosophy at Princeton University and San Francisco State University. He is a leading scholar of Empiricist thought in the philosophy of science, epistemology and formal logic.

Philosophers of science divide into empiricists and realists.

The scientific realists give a story about what to believe: to accept a theory is to believe that the things it talks about, observable or not, are really real.

On an empiricist view, the aim of science is to give us empirically adequate theories. There is a distinction between being true in all respects and being true about what is observable. Acceptance need not involve a belief that the unobservable parts of the scientifically represented world are real.

https://iai.tv/articles/science-does-not-describe-reality-auid-2724?_auid=2020

As usual, he is just mindlessly parroting some stupid article he found.

Science isn't philosophy. Science isn't logic. Science does not define the word 'real' or 'reality'. Philosophy does.
Science isn't observations. All observations are subject to the problems of phenomenology. They are not a proof as a result.

Science is just a set of falsifiable theories. That's all. That's it. No more. No less.

 

[Into the Night]

There is a distinction between being true in all respects and being true about what is observable.

Based on what I can see, that seems true.

This little snippet of his IS true. For example, 2+2=4 in the base ten system is True, and does not have to be observed to be True.

All observations, however, are subject to the problems of phenomenology. The Wannabe's mistake here is equating science with philosophy and assuming that an observation is a proof (which is incorrect).

 

[Into the Night]

Science can only describe what it observes. It cannot be an explanation of what is real.

Science is not observations. All observations are subject to the problems of phenomenology. They are not a proof or even a requirement of a theory of science.

 

[Into the Night]

The maths give us a clue that some scientific theories are a good approximation of aspects of ontological reality.

Math existed before science and there was no expectation originally that abstract mathmatics was so curiously functional and presice at describing nature.

The peculiar juxtaposition of nature and rational mathmatical organization seems like a clue that science is capable in some respects of perceiving ontological reality

Science is not a casino. Math is not science. Neither science nor math is philosophy.

 

[Into the Night]

More scientists need to be philosophically trained so they better understand what counts as an explanation.

Some scientific novices believe that photoreceptors in our eyes explain our subjective mental experience of colors.

It does nothing of the sort. Neurophysiology ascertains the physical facts of how retinal cones and rods detect photons, and translate optical wave properties into an electrical impulse. But that has no explanatory power for our subjective mental experience of red, gold, green, etc.

This post is actually correct. Good for you!

 

[Into the Night]

"These are “norms that prevail within the discipline that are not respected in public discourse, and that expose philosophers to cancellation risk,” he says. They are:

3. Stipulative definition of terminology. Philosophy also places a great deal of emphasis on the definition of terms. It is essential to be clear about what one is and is not committed to in making a particular claim; one must be clear about the terms one is using.

If one says that “X =def Y” then for the purposes of the argument that follows, X means Y, and one can only be held accountable for the inferences that follow from that. In particular, the fact that other people use X to mean Z becomes irrelevant to the argument. Philosophers have become so used to this disciplinary practice that they often take it for granted. Yet it is also quite unnatural.

https://dailynous.com/2024/01/30/philosophical-norms-cancel-culture/

So define 'climate change'. Define 'global warming'. Define 'pollution'. Define 'fascist'. Define ALL the wacky terms you throw around without meaning.

 

[Lionfish]

The BidenWannabe still has not yet figure out that censorship doesn't work. Bring yet another thread out for open discussion.

The OP:


As usual, he is just mindlessly parroting some stupid article he found.

Science isn't philosophy. Science isn't logic. Science does not define the word 'real' or 'reality'. Philosophy does.
Science isn't observations. All observations are subject to the problems of phenomenology. They are not a proof as a result.

Science is just a set of falsifiable theories. That's all. That's it. No more. No less.

Well said.

 

[Kafka]

More scientists need to be philosophically trained so they better understand what counts as an explanation.

Yeah, most of us are more philosophically trained than you are. But then you aren't really a scientist either.

Some scientific novices believe that photoreceptors in our eyes explain our subjective mental experience of colors.

Wow. You misrepresent stuff you and I have talked about. Why do you lie? You do realize that those who work in color science know that it isn't just the photoreceptors. In fact the CIE experiments (go ahead, google it) worked to factor in the brain's impact on color perception. That's why color spaces aren't just wavelengths.

It does nothing of the sort. Neurophysiology ascertains the physical facts of how retinal cones and rods detect photons, and translate optical wave properties into an electrical impulse. But that has no explanatory power for our subjective mental experience of red, gold, green, etc.

It's almost as if you never had anyone tell you about color science. And I know I have. Numerous times. Yet here you are acting like people don't understand color science and you, as per usual, grossly mischaracterize the science.

You really need to get your shit together and learn this stuff before you try to debate it.

 

[Kafka]

This post is actually correct. Good for you!

No it's not. Cypress has been told about color science (by me specifically) yet he is misrepresenting it here for effect.

Cypress is so uneducated that even stuff people try to explain to him can't penetrate.

 

[Into the Night]

Yeah, most of us are more philosophically trained than you are. But then you aren't really a scientist either.



Wow. You misrepresent stuff you and I have talked about. Why do you lie? You do realize that those who work in color science know that it isn't just the photoreceptors. In fact the CIE experiments (go ahead, google it) worked to factor in the brain's impact on color perception. That's why color spaces aren't just wavelengths.



It's almost as if you never had anyone tell you about color science. And I know I have. Numerous times. Yet here you are acting like people don't understand color science and you, as per usual, grossly mischaracterize the science.

You really need to get your shit together and learn this stuff before you try to debate it.

Color is not a science.
The so-called 'CIE experiments' are nothing more than representing what is already known about eye response (which is part of biological science) and interpretation by the brain (which is not science, but philosophy).

Everything the eye responds to is by wavelength and by intensity. Intensity affects both rods and cones, while wavelength is separated into primary (additive wheel) colors by a small colored drop in the cone that acts as a color filter.

It is the brain that takes this raw information and gives some meaning to it. That's philosophy, which includes the branch of phenomenology, where the word 'real' is defined, and the reasoning for it.

Assigning a colorspace is not science.

Thus, for this one limited post, Cypress is actually right.

 

[Into the Night]

32. Heisenberg, a die hard empiricist, thought this was an asset of his math: good scientific models shouldn't suggest a picture of underlying reality, they should just fit the data. Einstein vehemently disagreed.

https://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2024/02/science-does-not-describe-reality.html

This is a good discussion. This is how philosophers debate each other. Notice the lack of childish insults.

The childish insults are made by YOU, Sock.

Heisenberg created Heisenberg's law, which describes why photons (and other particles) behave like both a wave and a particle. This law also describes why no matter will ever achieve absolute zero in temperature. Basically, you can either know where a particle is, or how fast it's moving, or some combination between. You can never know both.

There is no such thing as 'empiricism'. Science does not use observation in any theory. Science has no proofs. All observations are subject to the problems of phenomenology.

 

[Nordberg]

Typical right-wing Into the Dark thread. Science is a mass of theories 100 percent backed by evidence. All you need is one provable data that does not fit the theory and the theory will be altered or replaced. There are no scientific theories that do not work. They fit the evidence and are used for predictions. The fact that if something can throw a theory if it does not fit, means that ALL the data does fit. Therefore they are true to all the evidence and they work.

 

[Into the Night]

That's science.
How about faith?
Does that even approach the subject of reality?

It is time once again to describe 'reality' and how it's defined.

Reality is just your own perception of the world. Each reality is as unique to you as a fingerprint. There is no absolute reality.

Take, for example, the simple observation of a sunrise.

* To one, it is a god rising into the sky to light the world for his creatures.
* To another, it is a vehicle carrying such a god.
* To another, it is a ball of fire orbiting the Earth.
* To another, it is the effect of the Earth's spin against a stationary Sun.
* To another, both Earth and Sun are moving, and the Earth's spin creates the effect of a Sun moving across the sky.

To each of these views, they are completely real to the viewer. The same event is interpreted by each viewer in a completely incompatible way, and to each, it IS reality.
To each viewer, what their senses detect must be interpreted, each according to how they figure the Universe is supposed to work. This is, in a nutshell, what phenomenology is all about. Even the movies examine this kind of question from time to time, such as the Matrix series.

The question from Morpheus: What IS real? How do you DEFINE real? In this series, the world of living in the Matrix is just as real as the world for those living outside the Matrix, including even the sentient machines in Machine City.


Science does NOT prove anything, not even if something is real. Science isn't a proof and has no proofs, for science is an open functional system. Only closed functional systems have proofs (and with it, the power to predict). Examples of a closed functional system is mathematics or logic. Both are defined purely by their axioms. They are like the 'rules of the game'. Change an axiom, and you change the 'rules'. You are playing a 'different game'.
Mathematics itself is split into different Domains by changing one or two axioms. In every case, the system is functionally closed. Mathematics ONLY exists within those rules.

Science is an open functional system. It is simply a set of falsifiable theories. That itself is a definition, not a rule or an axiom. Theories of science come and go. New ones occur, others are falsified and are no longer science. A theory of science can be about anything. In and of itself, it has NO power to predict. It must be transposed into a closed functional system (such as mathematics, typically) to gain the power of prediction.

In and of itself, a theory is simply an explanatory argument. An argument is a set of predicates and a conclusion. There are plenty of nonscientific theories. A theory of science MUST be falsifiable (by definition). That means a test must be available, practical to conduct, definable, and produce a definable result. That test must test the theory itself. These tests are against the null hypothesis of a theory. They are designed to try to break the theory. Science does NOT use any supporting evidence. The theory itself provides that. Science only is interested in conflicting evidence. A single piece of conflicting evidence destroys the theory as a theory of science. It ceases to be a theory altogether. It's not even a nonscientific theory anymore (though it may still be called that for reference purposes).

Only a religion uses supporting evidence. Science does not. This is the fundamental difference between the two. BOTH use theories. BOTH try to explain the world. But only ONE uses falsifiable theories.

Thus, 'real' and 'reality' are just our own interpretation of the world and universe our senses reveal to us (even if augmented by instrumentation). It is nothing more, and never could be anything more.
This also means observation can never be a proof. It may inspire a theory of science, but it, in and of itself, cannot be a proof.

 

[Into the Night]

Doesn't faith mean without demonstration?

The Argument of Faith has another name: The Circular Argument. This itself is NOT a fallacy, and forms a consistent logical construct. It is simply an argument that uses it's own conclusion as a predicate.

As long as the argument of faith is recognized as such, there is no problem. The problem occurs when one tries to PROVE an argument of faith either True or False. It is not possible to do so, for:

If the Argument is True, then the predicate supporting it must also be True (by definition). That truth STILL depends on an assumption of the predicate. The predicate itself can never be brought into question without bringing the conclusion into question.

if the Argument is False, then the predicate forming it must also be false, and this creates a strange loop (an argument that denies itself).

Attempting to prove a circular argument either True or False creates the Circular Argument fallacy for this reason. Either condition forms a logical inconsistency (and an error in logic, which is what a fallacy is).
It is not possible, for example, to prove whether any god or gods exist or not.

Circular argument fallacies are what a fundamentalist does. They attempt to try to prove their religion True. This is why any further arguments they make (including this initial one) is inane.

ALL religions are based on some initial circular argument (or Argument of Faith), with additional arguments extending from that initial argument. In Christianity, for example, the initial circular argument is that Christ lives and He say who He say He is (namely, the Son of God). ALL other arguments in Christianity stem from that initial circular argument. It is NOT possible to prove whether Jesus Christ exists or not. ANY attempt to do so creates the circular argument fallacy.

This is also true of leprechauns, pixies in the bushes, Wotan, Erda, Apollo, or any number of other god or gods that have come along. Attempting to prove any of these does NOT exist simply because you haven't seen one creates the Argument of Ignorance fallacy. It is not possible to conduct such a proof in an open set such as this because it is not possible to examine all cases (all elements of the set).

 

[Into the Night]

As Bas van Fraasen said, science can given accurate descriptions but not statements about what is true.

A paradox, Sock. A description IS made up of statements.

Science does NOT describe what is True. There are no proofs in science.

 

[archives]

The BidenWannabe still has not yet figure out that censorship doesn't work. Bring yet another thread out for open discussion.

The OP:


As usual, he is just mindlessly parroting some stupid article he found.

Science isn't philosophy. Science isn't logic. Science does not define the word 'real' or 'reality'. Philosophy does.
Science isn't observations. All observations are subject to the problems of phenomenology. They are not a proof as a result.

Science is just a set of falsifiable theories. That's all. That's it. No more. No less.

That’s pretty funny given “pigpen” continuously “mindlessly parrots some stupid article he found,” just ask him about climate change

 

[Into the Night]

The distinction being drawn is that what is empirically observable is not neccesarily ontologically true.

Electromagnetic radiation at the wavelength 700 nanometers is manifested in our mind as the color red.

Oddly enough, that doesn't work for the colorblind. They can't see or perceive anything as 'red'. What IS perceived as 'red' even to normal vision can have range of frequencies.

But how do we know our subjective mental experience of red is how the world really is independent of how our mind processes and experiences EM radiation of that wavelength and frequency?

You don't. You cannot read anyone's mind. A standard has been set, however, that a particular range of frequencies are considered 'red' (English). This color, of course, has different names in other languages.

Do we really know what a tree falling in the forest sounds like? Or is the sound just a subjective mental experience of how our brain processes electrical impulses generated by compressional waves in air,?

If you have been in a forest, and seen and heard a tree falling (for whatever reason), that will be the same sound in your own memory, so, yes...you really know what a tree falling in a forest sounds like.
Even if you have never experienced such a thing, people tend to have a preconceived notion of what a tree falling a forest sounds like (typically by some recording they've seen or heard).

 

[Into the Night]

Sound waves are generated whether or not there is any human to hear them.

Evidence of this is in the destruction left behind, and animals that flee from the sound.

 

[Into the Night]

Typical right-wing Into the Dark thread.

Nah. No one is censured here.

Science is a mass of theories 100 percent backed by evidence.

Nope. A theory DOES NOT REQUIRE EVIDENCE to exist. Observations are not a proof.

All you need is one provable data that does not fit the theory and the theory will be altered or replaced.

Data is not a proof. If conflicting evidence is found, the theory is DESTROYED. It is not altered. It is not replaced. It is destroyed. The theory no longer exists in any form.

There are no scientific theories that do not work.

Theories of science get falsified quite a lot, Sock. That means they do not work.

They fit the evidence and are used for predictions.

A theory is not evidence and does not require evidence to exist.

The fact that if something can throw a theory if it does not fit, means that ALL the data does fit.

WRONG. Only a single piece of evidence is necessary. All the other evidence can fit, but ONE single piece of evidence is sufficient to utterly destroy a theory of science.

Therefore they are true to all the evidence and they work.

Science does not use supporting evidence. Science is not religion. Only religion uses supporting evidence.

 

[Into the Night]

That’s pretty funny given “pigpen” continuously “mindlessly parrots some stupid article he found,” just ask him about climate change

Who is 'pigpen'?