"Bill Hobba" wrote in message ...
"Franco" wrote in message
...
On the thread I wrote about philosophy of science, most of users are
quoting
Richard Feynman and other physicists that can't say what philosophy is.

Unfortunately, most of scientists use the "empty word" philosophy. But
when
they use that "empty" word, they do not know what they are talking
about)

Philsophy is an empty word. Without any meaning. Philosophy is not a
discipline.

A simple examination of a dictionary and courses offered at universities
would indicate otherwise.

I'm very very surprised how most of users are talking about philsophy as a
discipline)

Somebody told me "dictionary say that philosophy is...". Somebody else
told
me "Feynman said that philsophy.......".

That's very funny to talk about something that is ONLY a name.
That is like "god". Everybody talk about "god", but nobody knows what
"god"
is)

Certain words like god, reality, etc, and to some extent philosophy are
difficult to pin down exactly but that does not men we do not have some idea
what the concepts mean - the fact they can be defined in a dictionary
trivially proves otherwise.

Positivists look at it this way: If there is no physical way to verify
the existence of a concept then you have no right to talk about such a
concept as being "meaningful." I disagree with that dogma. And when I
say "positivist," I mean not just in regard to scientific dogmas, but
also with respect to one's total belief system of existence.

Here's a question to ponder: Is reality verifiable?


Bill

Philosophy -- the study of the set of all possible belief systems
about everything real or imagined.

Natural philosophy -- the study of the set of all possible belief
systems about everything natural, including what "natural" and
"physical" mean.

Science -- a division of natural philosophy that attempts to formulate
and interpret laws (rules) of science that describe invariable
relationships among physical values and/or physical events.

Physics -- the search for the smallest set of rules that completely
describes and interprets the behavior of the inanimate material realm
under natural conditions.

There is no gap between philosophy and science. To do science you have
to first know what "natural" and "physical" mean and you have to setup
a method of vetting "scientific knowledge" claims. Therefore, you have
to also have a prior epistemology of scientific knowledge. That is,
you have to have a means of 1) conceptually formulating, 2)
linguistically expressing, and 3) rationally justifying scientific
knowledge claims. Likewise, you have to first have a scientific
ontology. That is, you have to be able to 1) conceptually formulate
what are natural and/or physical objects, 2) decide how to represent
these objects linguistically, and 3) decide how rationally justify
existence claims for these objects.

Metaphysics deals with every aspect of the question of existence;
ontology is a subdivision of metaphysics that deals with the prior
establishment of how to formally deal with the nature of existence
before one asks the question, "What actually does exist?": 1) how are
existence claims meaningful, 2) how are these claims represented in a
language, and 3) how are these claims presented as justified,
rationally or otherwise. Apparently someone decided that science is
supposed to be "rational" --- whatever that means.

Science is either just another belief system or it is not. If it is
just another belief system, what is it in detail? And how does it
compare to other belief systems?

Patrick

Patrick Reany wrote:

Science is either just another belief system or it is not. If it is
just another belief system, what is it in detail? And how does it
compare to other belief systems?

It is a belief system plus a constraint. The constraint is that all
conclusions from the belief system are empirically testable and that the
conclusions are corroberated by observation (experiment). Science
differs from religion in that it does not have a built in set of excuses
for its failures to coincide with what is seen.

There is no doubt a set of unverified assumptions at the base of
physics. Among these is the assumption that physical laws are the same
everywhere and in every direction. Physics based in New York is the same
physics as is based in Paris or Moscow or on the star Sirius.

Bob Kolker

Robert J. Kolker ha scritto nel messaggio
9RTHc.62756$Oq2.22541@attbi_s52...


Patrick Reany wrote:

Science is either just another belief system or it is not. If it is
just another belief system, what is it in detail? And how does it
compare to other belief systems?


Robert Kolker replied:
It is a belief system plus a constraint.


I dare say that is a constraint
The difference between a belief system and science is that science is
obvious, evident to everybody

Nowadays the "theory of knowledge" is something that SCIENTISTS do. See
neuroscience, physics, cognitive science and so on.

So, I said that epistemology is a scientific matter. Epistemology(as a
theory of knowledge) is part of science, like physics, neuroscience,
biology, chemistry and so on.

When we try to know "how" we know, that is epistemology, theory of
knowledge.

The ONLY important theory of knowledge is science. And professional
philosophers tried(see Popper and so on) to study what science is.

So, they called that sort of study "philosophy of science". That mean an
analysis on what science is.

If they use psychology and sociology in that analysis, that is science too.
A scientific analysis. If they talk without using psychology and sociology,
that is not a scientifical analysis but only opinions.

Science is the "best" knowledge that we have.

Even politics or morality depend from what people want

We can study people behaviour using psychology, sociology(science.

I really do not understand where is a place for philosophy nowadays.

I'm afraid that what we call "philosophy" is the same activity that nowadays
SCIENTISTS do!!

I've read some professional philosopher, (Ricoeur, Jaspers and so on). They
used to say that philosophy without science is dead.

That is because we can use science and love knowledge by studying science)

Philosophy= loving knowledge, nowadays is "loving science".

Bye Bob,
Franco

Patrick Reany wrote:
Here's a question to ponder: Is reality verifiable?

Who cares? Where are you going to go if it is? Don't reply unless you do so in
a philosophy forum.

Patrick Reany:

Positivists look at it this way: If there is no physical way to verify
the existence of a concept then you have no right to talk about such a
concept as being "meaningful." I disagree with that dogma. And when I
say "positivist," I mean not just in regard to scientific dogmas, but
also with respect to one's total belief system of existence.

You miss the point - in several ways. First, you seem to think that
concept is merely a philosophical one. It's not. Most obviously, if
something can't be measured, how can it possibly have any effect on any
process in the universe? By definition, an effect is a measurable
quantity. If some hypothetical thing has no effect on anything in this
universe, attempting to say it has any reality is just the kind of mental
mastur- bation that gives philosophy a bad name.

But, you miss a more fundamental issue. I can describe _any_ process as
a black box, without having having any idea of what it is, what it does,
how it works, etc. I don't need a physical theory nor is it necessary to
rely on of your ``free inventions of the human mind'' to interpret the
output. If the output is random, then no physical process could have
decoded the output from the input. By definition, random means the output
is independent of the input. Feel free to translate that ``free invention
of the human mind'' into a ``free invention of the klingon'' mind, a
``free invention of the electron mind'', a ``free invention of the
xa'ajnfanaf'' mind or whatever else floats your boat. Just make sure you
make the ``whatever else'' part of the universe.

I don't suppose you considered the possibility that the way we describe
the universe is not independent of the fact that we are able to exist in
it, have you or that it really isn't appropriate to consider the ``free
inventions of the minds of 37 dimensional beings in some other universe''
as a sensible option, have you? I think your view of reality could be
called naive and bordering on mysticism.

"Franco" wrote in message ...
Robert J. Kolker ha scritto nel messaggio
9RTHc.62756$Oq2.22541@attbi_s52...


Patrick Reany wrote:

Science is either just another belief system or it is not. If it is
just another belief system, what is it in detail? And how does it
compare to other belief systems?


Robert Kolker replied:
It is a belief system plus a constraint.


I dare say that is a constraint
The difference between a belief system and science is that science is
obvious, evident to everybody

Nowadays the "theory of knowledge" is something that SCIENTISTS do. See
neuroscience, physics, cognitive science and so on.

So, I said that epistemology is a scientific matter. Epistemology(as a
theory of knowledge) is part of science, like physics, neuroscience,
biology, chemistry and so on.

more in similar vein

There is always a possible dichotomy between what class X does,
descriptively, and what class X ought to be doing, prescriptively (I
couldn't really resist the opposition between descriptively and
prescriptively). When scientists denigrate philosophers they tend to
point to some BS someone one considers himself a philosopher is guilty
of. Now, I quite agree with much of what you wrote in the spirit of
prescription, but I don't like what you are doing in terms of a silly
descriptive turf war. You are like a Democrat who is forced to
acknowledge the utility of some Republican programs, but says "when
they think like that, they are really being Democrats!" -- by
definition anything worthwhile is X, not Y. Scientists do all that is
good and true, and if by chance anybodgy who considers himself a
philosopher does anything good and true, well ... then he is really a
scientist -- is that about right?

The transparency of this self-servicing self-congratulation shows you
are not much of an adept as a philosopher, that's sure. What
childhood problem requires you to devalue a certain word? How about I
turn this argument on its head and argue that whenever scientists make
good progress, they are really contributing to to philosophy, or the
love of knowledge -- one sophistic argument is not more silly than the
other. What is the etymology of "science", by the way?

Most people will never make any substantive progress or contribution
to wither science or philosophy, call them what we will, and that's a
fact, but some will momentarily assuage their deep and well-grounded
feelings of inferiority by identification with the apparently winning
team -- like wearing a Yankees cap when they win the series. All
teams that win are really New York Yankees.

I wouldn't obsess about what we call good thinking -- except in
reaction to some poorly thought-through triumphalism like yours.

There is no gap between philosophy and physics - is belief evil?

"Robert J. Kolker" wrote in message news:9RTHc.62756$Oq2.22541@attbi_s52...
Patrick Reany wrote:

Science is either just another belief system or it is not. If it is
just another belief system, what is it in detail? And how does it
compare to other belief systems?

This is an interesting statement, and I am going to dissect it.

It follows standard attack mode, and it proceeds as follows:

A: Implied truth:

Belief systems are evil.

B: ('Bait', or, less questionable statement put forth as a substitute
for the implied truth. (tempered by being placed in question format)
The Bait generally provides the basis for the sentence, in order to
allow the communication to proceed, and it is followed by the
'attack', but usually the purpose of the statement is to try to make
the listiner accept the 'implied truth', if nothing else, from habit.)
[Tempered as a question.]

Science is just another belief system.

C: Attack: (proceeding logically)

[Therefore, science is evil.]
(Distorted by intermixing with the implied truth.)


Now, when it comes to the attack, I think that it is reasonable to say
that any particular thing, can be evil, especially when it is out of
balance.

It would be nice to go back to before the existance of civilization,
and live in a primitive simplicity, and at least a seemingly
theoretical bliss.

Nonetheless, if one were able to do so, somehow, one would probably
end up getting into a situation where one might be charged at by large
sabre-toothed cats with fangs, or end up skewered by a charging wooly
mammoth. Then at least some primitive aspects of science would seem
rather nice.


Now Bob Kolker here in another branch of the thread deflected the
'implied truth' and said that it was a 'belief system', but then
qualified it by division with a seperate term, 'constraint', and then
said that the 'constraint' was one of being empirically testable.

It is a belief system plus a constraint. The constraint is that all
conclusions from the belief system are empirically testable and that the
conclusions are corroberated by observation (experiment). Science
differs from religion in that it does not have a built in set of excuses
for its failures to coincide with what is seen.

There is no doubt a set of unverified assumptions at the base of
physics. Among these is the assumption that physical laws are the same
everywhere and in every direction. Physics based in New York is the same
physics as is based in Paris or Moscow or on the star Sirius.

Bob Kolker

Now at the beginning of this response there is the statement 'it is a
belief system'.

The question, however, is, is it really a belief system, if it is
based upon observation, and admits that it is a system that is
modifiable based upon observation, if these observations bear
themselves out and show themselves to be true?

I looked up the term 'belief' in Webster's New World Dictionary,
Second College Edition, and came up with a word listing for comparison
which I will quote:

belief, the term of broadest application in this comparison, implies
mental acceptance of something as true, even though absolute certainty
may be absent.

faith implies complete, unquestioning acceptance of something even in
the absence of proof and, esp., of something not supported by reason

trust implies assurance, often completely intuitive, in the
reliability of someone or something

confidence also suggests such assurance, esp. when based on reason or
evidence

credence suggests more mental acceptance of something that may have no
solid basis in fact (see also opinion)


It is difficult to say wheather I was once a vehement supporter of A
or not, regardless of more current conditions. (Anyway, it was not a
'belief'.)

Nonetheless, there might still be said to be somewhat of an arguement
against B, which Kolker has accepted, with qualifications.

Coming from at least a partial possible standpoint of complete
neutrality, maybe or maybe not for the sake of arguement alone, what
arguements can persons here give in favor, or against, either or both,
A and/or B?

"Robert J. Kolker" wrote in message
news:9RTHc.62756$Oq2.22541@attbi_s52...


Patrick Reany wrote:

Science is either just another belief system or it is not. If it is
just another belief system, what is it in detail? And how does it
compare to other belief systems?

It is a belief system plus a constraint. The constraint is that all
conclusions from the belief system are empirically testable and that the
conclusions are corroberated by observation (experiment). Science
differs from religion in that it does not have a built in set of excuses
for its failures to coincide with what is seen.

There is no doubt a set of unverified assumptions at the base of
physics. Among these is the assumption that physical laws are the same
everywhere and in every direction. Physics based in New York is the same
physics as is based in Paris or Moscow or on the star Sirius.

Physics,
like beauty and religion ,
is in the eye of the beholder.

It is obvious that the masses perception of
most subjects can be modulated with and religious indoctrination
and the media.

The fact that General relativity is a Tower of Babel,
that generates more heat than light,
and wastes time, money and minds
on costly pursuits and speculations about
time travel, warped space, black holes, worm holes, etc.
is a clear indication of the power of
conditioning the masses to a particular point of view.

A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

--
Tom Potter http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp

Altruon Zardephax ha scritto nel messaggio
CUT

I hope that Reanhy is not a believer, a theist, christians and so on

I wanted to add to my previous message, the following.

Knowledge is something that humans are doing from ever. Knowledge is a good
system to survive in our environment.

I appreciate what you said about knowledge and how it is important for our
life.
Science and techonology are very important. Our knowledge nowadays is ONLY
science. Philosophy is NOTHING!!

Before science we used philosophy. But philosophy didn't care about
experiment, mathematics, observation.

Philosophy used to be a mere reasoning. Philosophy was the ability to
duscuss about a subject.

SCIENCE is very different. We use observation, experiment, mathematics and
so on.

Epistemology(how we know: theory of knowledge, gnoseology) exist, and
neuroscience and physics (science in genaral) do that.

Nowadays we have a "theory of knowledge" based on science, on observation,
on experiment, on mathematics.

We can say as well that nowadays(I mean from 1700 on) we have replaced
philosophy(mere reasoning) with SCIENCE (observation, experiment,
mathematics).

We have to remind about Giordano Bruno (1500), Galileo Galilei, Francis
Bacon and so on.
Philosophers that used to indicate NATURE as the real world, the world that
a "lover of knowledge" MUST investigate.

That was because in 1400 old Greek culture was translated in Latin, so they
discovered greek art, mathematics, science, and so on.

They discovered that old Greek loved nature and investigated that(see Greek
scientists).

So, Giordano Bruno, Galileo Galileo, began to study nature using the old
greek culture as background. Before the background was Church culture
BIBLE))

Philosophy is something for believers, theists, christians, muslims, jewish
))
I mean philosophy as a mere reasoning without using experiment, observation,
mathematics and so on.

We do not need to change too much terms. Epistemology(the theory of
knowledge) exist nowadays, and that is the scientific method. And
"philosophy of science" is the analysis to see how science works, in a
sociological way, in a psychological way.

The problem remain religion
And religious like philosophy, and like to put in European Constitution that
our origin are religious origin)

That's the problem.

I remind to everybody that philosophy is a MERE REASONING. Science use
observation, experiment, mathematics and so on.

I hope that this is a good difference to choose science to a "mere
reasoning".
But believers like a "mere reasoning" and not science)


Regards,
Franco

(Altruon Zardephax) wrote in message . com...
There is no gap between philosophy and physics - is belief evil?

"Robert J. Kolker" wrote in message news:9RTHc.62756$Oq2.22541@attbi_s52...
Patrick Reany wrote:

Science is either just another belief system or it is not. If it is
just another belief system, what is it in detail? And how does it
compare to other belief systems?

This is an interesting statement, and I am going to dissect it.

It follows standard attack mode, and it proceeds as follows:

A: Implied truth:

Belief systems are evil.

I don't know why we should think of belief systems per se as evil.


B: ('Bait', or, less questionable statement put forth as a substitute
for the implied truth. (tempered by being placed in question format)
The Bait generally provides the basis for the sentence, in order to
allow the communication to proceed, and it is followed by the
'attack', but usually the purpose of the statement is to try to make
the listiner accept the 'implied truth', if nothing else, from habit.)
[Tempered as a question.]

Science is just another belief system.

C: Attack: (proceeding logically)

[Therefore, science is evil.]
(Distorted by intermixing with the implied truth.)


Now, when it comes to the attack, I think that it is reasonable to say
that any particular thing, can be evil, especially when it is out of
balance.

It would be nice to go back to before the existance of civilization,
and live in a primitive simplicity, and at least a seemingly
theoretical bliss.

Nonetheless, if one were able to do so, somehow, one would probably
end up getting into a situation where one might be charged at by large
sabre-toothed cats with fangs, or end up skewered by a charging wooly
mammoth. Then at least some primitive aspects of science would seem
rather nice.


Now Bob Kolker here in another branch of the thread deflected the
'implied truth' and said that it was a 'belief system', but then
qualified it by division with a seperate term, 'constraint', and then
said that the 'constraint' was one of being empirically testable.

It is a belief system plus a constraint. The constraint is that all
conclusions from the belief system are empirically testable and that the
conclusions are corroberated by observation (experiment). Science
differs from religion in that it does not have a built in set of excuses
for its failures to coincide with what is seen.

Then we should NEVER see a case where an ad hoc hypothesis is added to
a theory to save the appearance that it is a "correct" theory, right?


There is no doubt a set of unverified assumptions at the base of
physics. Among these is the assumption that physical laws are the same
everywhere and in every direction. Physics based in New York is the same
physics as is based in Paris or Moscow or on the star Sirius.

Bob Kolker

Now at the beginning of this response there is the statement 'it is a
belief system'.

The question, however, is, is it really a belief system, if it is
based upon observation, and admits that it is a system that is
modifiable based upon observation, if these observations bear
themselves out and show themselves to be true?

Being "based upon observation" is not enough. By itself the phrase is
pretty vague. There are lots of improbable and even ludicrous beliefs
systems that can rightfully declare themselves as "being based upon
observation."

Empirically based beliefs can be accountable to observation or not. In
science we claim that they are, but this is no guarantee of producing
absolute truth either. Science is a belief system, but not all belief
systems are born equal. Science believes that it out does its
belief-system competition because it is not only empirical but also
communal, but that still does produce absolute truth.

Patrick