How does philosophy not affect science?

[Entrails Konfetti]

But then come the Neo-Kantian agnostics and say: We may correctly perceive the qualities of a thing, but we cannot by any sensible or mental process grasp the thing-in-itself. This "thing-in-itself" is beyond our ken. To this Hegel, long since, has replied: If you know all the qualities of a thing, you know the thing itself; nothing remains but the fact that the said thing exists without us; and, when your senses have taught you that fact, you have grasped the last remnant of the thing-in-itself, Kant's celebrated unknowable Ding an sich. To which it may be added that in Kant's time our knowledge of natural objects was indeed so fragmentary that he might well suspect, behind the little we knew about each of them, a mysterious "thing-in-itself". But one after another these ungraspable things have been grasped, analyzed, and, what is more, reproduced by the giant progress of science; and what we can produce we certainly cannot consider as unknowable. To the chemistry of the first half of this century, organic substances were such mysterious object; now we learn to build them up one after another from their chemical elements without the aid of organic processes. Modern chemists declare that as soon as the chemical constitution of no-matter-what body is known, it can be built up from its elements. We are still far from knowing the constitution of the highest organic substances, the albuminous bodies; but there is no reason why we should not, if only after centuries, arrive at the knowledge and, armed with it, produce artificial albumen. But, if we arrive at that, we shall at the same time have produced organic life, for life, from its lowest to its highest forms, is but the normal mode of existence of albuminous bodies.

Frederick Engels
Socialism: Utopian and Scientific
1892 English Edition Introduction
[General Introduction and the History of Materialism]

If your judgment of a thing is correct, your testing of the thing will end in a correct result.

Here science has worked with Hegels philosophy in explaining that if you grasp all the characteristcs that make a thing, you grasp the thing in itself by recreating organic substances. Stem cells can recreate legs for a cripple. Pharamcies have manfuctured drugs by recreating organic compounds in laboratories.

Still many claim that philosophy is a seperate body from science.

I think they work hand-in-hand, an assumption is at first made, usually philosophic in character or is a philosophy, but if it's not tested to be accurate its just a wize sounding thought gathering up dust on a bookshelf, or is the museum of antiquity-- to help people learn the human races footsteps to where we are now in the walk of life.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Nice try El K, but many incorrect theories work (and they can do so do so for centuries).

For example, Ptolemaic astronomy worked well for over a thousand years, and it grew more accurate with time, and it was superior to Copernican astronomy over explaining the absence of stellar parallax, for instance.

However, since the introduction of relativity theory, there is now no reason to accept the superiority of Copernican view over the Ptolemaic view. So some incorrect theories can be rehabilitated.

Here is what Professor Fred Hoyle said:

"Instead of adding further support to the heliocentric picture of the planetary motions the Einstein theory goes in the opposite direction, giving increased respectability to the geocentric picture. The relation of the two pictures is reduced to a mere coordinate transformation and it is the main tenet of the Einstein theory that any two ways of looking at the world which are related to each other by a coordinate transformation are entirely equivalent from a physical point of view....

"Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is 'right' and the Ptolemaic theory 'wrong' in any meaningful physical sense...." [Hoyle (1973), pp.78-79.]

"We now know that the difference between a heliocentric theory and a geocentric theory is one of relative motion only, and that such a difference has no physical significance. But such an understanding had to await Einstein's theory of gravitation in order to be fully clarified." [Hoyle (1975), p.416.]

Similarly, Max Born commented thus:

"Thus from Einstein's point of view Ptolemy and Copernicus are equally right. What point of view is chosen is a matter of expediency. For the mechanics of the planetary system the view of Copernicus is certainly the more convenient. But it is meaningless to call the gravitational fields that occur when a different system of reference is chosen 'fictitious' in contrast with the 'real' fields produced by near masses: it is just as meaningless as the question of the 'real' length of a rod...in the special theory of relativity. A gravitational field is neither 'real' nor 'fictitious' in itself. It has no meaning at all independent of the choice of coordinates, just as in the case of the length of a rod." [Born (1965), p.345. I owe this reference to Rosser (1967).]

And, on this, Robert Mills had this to say:

"Another way of stating the principle of equivalence, a way that better reflects its name, is to say that all reference frames, including accelerated reference frames, are equivalent, that the laws of Physics take the same form in any reference frame…. And it is also correct to say that the Copernican view (with the sun at the centre) and the Ptolemaic view (with the earth at the centre) are equally valid and equally consistent!" [Mills (1994), pp.182-83. Spelling altered to conform to UK English.]



Of course, it could always be claimed that Copernican theory is simpler than Ptolemaic, but until we receive a clear sign that nature works according to our notion of simplicity (or cares a fig about it), that argument won't wash.

This is quite apart from the fact that 'simplicity' is impossible to define in non-question-begging terms. For example, is this formula:

(1) θ = Ae exp(-kt)

'simpler' than this?

(2) θ = At2 + Bt + C

(2) is algebraically 'simpler' but (1) is 'simpler' in the number of terms it uses.

On this, see Losee (2001), pp.228-29. Also see Goldstein (1990), pp.167-75.

And, El K, saddling science with the mystical jargon found in Hegel's Hermetic Philosophy would halt all progress in its tracks. [Which is probably why the number of scientists who actually use dialectics, outside of the old communists block, can be fitted into a very small restaurant, with ease.]

So, dialectics does not even make the [i]reserve list of possible philosophies that are of any use to science -- it is far too confused, back-ward looking and is based on poorly understood stone age logic.

So the fact that erroneous theories can work for hundreds of years shows that truth is not tested in practice; such theories were tested, worked, but were wrong. And some that did not work, later became 'right' again.

The same is true with the impoverished theory you DM-fans like so much (except it has never worked....).

Science is far too complex to fit into that old dialectical boot you just tried.

-------------------------------

Born, M. (1965), Einstein's Theory Of Relativity (Dover, 2nd ed.).

Goldstein, L. (1990), The Philosopher's Habitat (Routledge).

Hoyle, F. (1973), Nicolaus Copernicus. An Essay On His Life And Work (Heinemann).

--------, (1975), Astronomy And Cosmology. A Modern Course (W H Freeman).

Losee, J. (2001), A Historical Introduction To The Philosophy Of Science (Oxford University Press, 4th ed.).

Mills, R. (1994), Space, Time And Quanta (W H Freeman).

Rosser, W. (1967), Introductory Relativity (Plenum Press).


[All this, and more, was published in one of my Essays; I am surprised you prefer to remain in ignorance still....]

[peaccenicked]

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&rls...nition&ct=title (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&rls=SUNA,SUNA:2006-18,SUNA:en&defl=en&q=define:philosophy&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title)


and
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&rls...nition&ct=title (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&rls=SUNA,SUNA:2006-18,SUNA:en&defl=en&q=define:science&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title)


Anyone with only one answer to this question is very mistaken.


(Sorry about the edits door bell rang)

[peaccenicked]

Another useful web page

http://www.marxists.org/archive/pilling/wo...al/pilling2.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/pilling/works/capital/pilling2.htm)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Peace, why do you keep posting links to confused dialecticians?

Have you abandoned your formerly successful tactic of simply making stuff up?

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 19 2006, 06:09 PM
Nice try El K, but many incorrect theories work (and they can do so do so for centuries).
I'm flattered that you think I'm so advanced in the lessons of philosophy to accuse me of something. :)

Heh, you'd probably like to know that the only book on philoposhy I've read came complete with comic book illustrations, and comes complete with a great title Introduction to Philosophy. I should buy some crayons to fill in the pictures. :lol:

You probably remember me as the guy who called you "uppity", well I appologize for that remark, I meant that you were acting more along the lines of impulsive--jumping to conclusions.


So, dialectics does not even make the reserve list of possible philosophies that are of any use to science -- it is far too confused, back-ward looking and is based on poorly understood stone age logic.

They had logic back then :o


The same is true with the impoverished theory you DM-fans like so much (except it has never worked....).

Well I'm just reading the Marxist basics, hence its the intro to Socialism: Utopian and Scientific I quoted from. You'll usually find me on here asking questions as I go along with my readings, see the history thread I asked a question about the development to anf from household community, that questions based off Origins of Family Private Property and the State. I can't claim to be a fan of anything. Though from what I've heard about dialectics, I found it easy to grasp. I like how it explains history and the future as an on-going developmental proccess, everything that I've heard before that seems to make everything into a series of disconnected events.


[All this, and more, was published in one of my Essays; I am surprised you prefer to remain in ignorance still....]

I'd probably have to read a bunch of stuff first to figure out what your going on about, that includes studying what you dispise-- the dialectic.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

EL-K: apologies if I mistook anything you said (either here or before -- I can't recall calling you 'uppity' but if I did, I apologise for that too), but:


I like how it explains history and the future as an on-going developmental proccess, everything that I've heard before that seems to make everything into a series of disconnected events.

I suggest you have bought a pig in a poke on this one; this is because dialectics cannot account for anything (for reasons I have tried to outline in several threads here).


I'd probably have to read a bunch of stuff first to figure out what your going on about, that includes studying what you dispise-- the dialectic.

That goes without saying.

But if you want to read summaries of my ideas, begin here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/essay_...een%20Index.htm (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/essay_sixteen%20Index.htm)

[peaccenicked]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 19 2006, 09:19 PM
Peace, why do you keep posting links to confused dialecticians?

Have you abandoned your formerly successful tactic of simply making stuff up?
Rosa.You are the one who is truly confused.
here you dont present in proof that Pilling is confused.

What is his confusion, merely that he thinks in terms you have no compehension of.


Well, even if this slide represented a sound piece of Iron Age Logic, negation would still only apply to words, not things. [Or, to put it another way, if negation applies to objects and processes in the world, DM-theorists have been remarkably secretive about its proof.]

How silly is this, does one need to prove that things die, pass away.

Neruda:I grew up in this town, my poetry was born between the hill and the river, it took its voice from the rain, and like the timber, it steeped itself in the forests.


I quote Neruda for another reason: I ve lived in the forest of dialectics since I was a kid. I know when someone cannot see the wood for the trees.
All along the line you are looking at things that are not needed, you have a true penchant for it. You cant see the wood for the trees.

There is very little that does not stand up to negation to some degree, even universal forms that exist in this world have a life expectancy.

Looking for proof of this is basically undermining thought itself.

Apriori, assumptions about things can be made. Why cant you accept this.


Bears shit in the woods.

Really they do?

Hows that for not ever seeing bear shit.

This example is a bit trite but what level of evidence do you need to satisfy yourself that things get negated.



It is you that is making stuff up..to hide this deep internal fallacy

[peaccenicked]

To the question of philosophy and science.

Marx took a turn against philosophy, he saw much of its hitherto weaknesses and
promoted a paradigm shift towards science. This was also the shift Hegel desired.
The movement from religious question to scientific questions was well underway.

Hence there is much cross over between philosophical viewpoints to those concerning science.

The act of discerning bad philosophy in amongst good science was taken on board by philosophers including the Greeks.

It is still a theme of philosophy today. Hegel held on to god, while Marx developed political economy on the back of Hegels work on Logic.

Various anti Hegelians have tried to push themselves as demystifiers of Marx and invaraibly reduced themselves into the bad philosophy camp known as empiricism.
This philosophy took on various shapes but fetishised sense certainty. This led to a general attack on dialectics, and the drawing of conclusions with discussion as uncertain and unverifiable.(Popper)
While there are weakness in discussion of a subject, it became considered as entirely useless, unless empirical data was provided. Thus burying the human faculty of speculation.

This empty preposterous negation of human reason and its potential or its floating credibility sees conjecture ruled out as unscientific.

Yet it is only by conjecture that new ideas arise. Someone has to know what they are looking for before they can look for it.

Hence mankind has to deduce from his environment what is needed for the development of things.

This process is basically and predominantly one of discussion and is dialectical in nature though not necessarily consciously so. It is a free discussion.

Empiricists enter this disscussion with no ideas other than immediate satisfication of sense certainty and deconstruct the discussion around this issue alone. thus impoverishing the development of scientific theory.

The politics of empiricism is naturally to stay clear of potential problems. Those answers cant be proved.
Popper talks of peicemeal action.

Marxists advocating empiricism instead of dialectics usually produce positivism.
Analysis without Vision and analyse mainly actualities and mainly produce slogans.
They become a deadweight on the movement and become merely routinistic.

This bureaucratic thinking postpones discussion till empirical phenonemon arises. It discards predictions, and warnings and is a remedy for destroying the planet.


This is why it is so important to fight the empiricist mysticism of science, and the virus it produces in politics.
This is one of the reasons why chomsky notes there is little discussion on the nuclear threat to Iran

[mikelepore]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 07:43 AM
Marx took a turn against philosophy, he saw much of its hitherto weaknesses and
promoted a paradigm shift towards science.
Science can determine what exists and how it works, but it can't prescribe goals. Science can't calculate or derive experimentally that it would be a good idea to free people from slavery, or a bad idea to destroy the world. To set goals requires ethical philosophy, and even aesthetic philosophy. Once we set goals, reason and science are useful to determine ways to implement those goals.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Peace:


Rosa.You are the one who is truly confused.
here you dont present in proof that Pilling is confused.

But, you were the one on the other thread who condemned the call for proof as 'childish'; when I copy you you call me 'confused'.

But what does that make you, if I mreely copied your tactic?

[Incidentally, I manage to prove the ideas that Pilling espouses are confused at my site, but I'd better not let Peace know this; he thinks proof is childish.]


How silly is this, does one need to prove that things die, pass away.

No problem with change, etc; just with why you mystics use 'negation' inappropriately, thus making nature Ideal, and the product of language (the negative particle is a linguistic item; perhaps you did not know?).


Apriori, assumptions about things can be made. Why cant you accept this.

Because you fail to give a good reason.

If you have one, let's see it.

I claim that such assumptions reveal the Idealism implicit in any theory where this occurs (and if you read my Essays, you would see why I say this).

And now you reveal you do not know what the term 'a priori' means:


Bears shit in the woods.

This is a posteriori (forgive the pun).

As I have noted several times; you need to stop revealing your ignorance.


Really they do?

Hows that for not ever seeing bear shit.

This example is a bit trite but what level of evidence do you need to satisfy yourself that things get negated.

I am sorry, what exactly has been negated here?

If it is a proposition, no problem.

But if it is something else, you failed to say.


It is you that is making stuff up..to hide this deep internal fallacy

Ok, I have itemised all your inventions (once again, not asserting anything here without something to back it up); so, where do I make stuff up?

Go on, put your evidence where your bluster is.

Your other post really does not add anything new, and certainly does not address anything I have said, so I think it best to let it die quietly....

[mikelepore]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 19 2006, 06:09 PM
entirely equivalent from a physical point of view
I think Hoyle exaggerated. In any coordinate system, the center of mass of the sun-earth system will still be located inside the sun. General relativity needs the center of mass as much as Kepler's method does.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

M: thanks for that comment; however I think his general point stands, as does that of Mills and Born.