Philosophy Of Science

[bezdomni]

Where do most comrades here find themselves concerning the philosophy of science? I assume nobody here really has an instrumentalist point of view...because instrumentalism doesn't seem to be very compatible with historical materialism.

I find that I align myself mostly with Essentialism...that scientific theories can and should explain the reasons why phenomoena occur. This is also (somewhat) the view that Karl Popper takes, however, he breaks with it when he makes the assertions that no theories can be logically proven beyond a reasonable doubt. I have trouble swallowing this for many reasons, but my main reason is that if we can't accept anything beyond a reasonable doubt, then we can't even accept the rules of logic...which makes Popper's entire system absurd.

What do you think?

[hoopla]

I'm studying HPS, and I wouldn't have a f*ing clue. Theres just so many theories competeing with one another.

Construtive empiricism would seem to be quite rational, patchwork realism sounds cool. I've never heard of essentialism, I think.

I would definetly like to know what philosophy of science sits best with Marxism...

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

The best book on the Philosophy of Science written by a Marxist is 'Fact and Method', by Richard Miller (Princeton University Press, 1987).

He defends a non-metaphysical form of realism.

I think he is mistaken in so doing, since we do not need a 'philosophy' of science.

[The Feral Underclass]

I read the first chapter of 'Philosophy of Right' and almost died of an embolism. Hegel is so dense for the "average" reader like me that my simple advice would be: Stay away from Hegel!

[apathy maybe]

I do think there needs to be a "Philosophy of Science". Philosophy generally is about the world and and the universe and attempts to explain it and our place in it.

Science (a subset in many ways of philosophy) also attempts to explain such things, but (being a subset it can't look at all the same things) leaves out ethics and morals and similar.

Science needs a set of rules to guide it; otherwise we could be faced with bullshit pseudo-science or creationism.



[Popper] makes the assertions that no theories can be logically proven beyond a reasonable doubt. I would say that no (physical) theory can be "proved", but such things as maths (and logic) are not physical. They exist independently of observations of the real world. Once you have 1+1=2 (which has been proven), then you can build large complex structures.


I haven't actually read much philosophy of science stuff yet (though I'm doing a unit on it this semester).

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

TAT, I can only second your warning.

However, I have to study this monumental obscurantist so I can help end his influence.

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

Apathy M, all we need is science and more science, if it cannot explain something, philosophy stands no chance.

Why?

Philosophers have been unable to solve single problem in 2500 years of trying (nor have they even looked like they ever could).

Their pursuit of 'knowledge' is about as unsuccessful a human endeavour as one could imagine.

It was originally invented and is now only maintained because it helps support the idea that the universe is 'rational' (i.e., the product on Mind) and has an a priori structure that thought alone can explore (hence it is fundamentally Idealist).

This has then been used to substantiate the idea that there is an underlying natural order to the universe (unavailable to the senses, so you have to take the word of the rich and powerful that it exists), which order also determines social stratification (these days through our 'genes', etc.), and which justifies class division (the 'deserving rich', etc.), and the power of the state (to maintain 'order') and, of course, traditional morality (these days, called 'Western/Family Values').

Hence, my constant argument against the need for a philosophy of any sort.

[hoopla]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 21 2006, 09:08 PM
The best book on the Philosophy of Science written by a Marxist is 'Fact and Method', by Richard Miller (Princeton University Press, 1987).

He defends a non-metaphysical form of realism.

I think he is mistaken in so doing, since we do not need a 'philosophy' of science.
Ta Rosa.

If you, as a working class person, had to agree to whether the independence thesis (Our judgements answer to their truth to a world which exists independently of our semses) and the knowledge thesis (By and large we can know which of these judgements are true), where would you stand.

Sorry for the jargon, but I will be asked to agree with one or the other side, and I hope that you would be able to show which would be the more Marxian :lol:

At the least, it would be good starting point to work from.

Thanks

[hoopla]

Marxist philosophy of science is known as historical materialism : :huh:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hoopla:


If you, as a working class person, had to agree to whether the independence thesis (Our judgements answer to their truth to a world which exists independently of our semses) and the knowledge thesis (By and large we can know which of these judgements are true), where would you stand.

I gave this a lot of thought, and I think I have the appropriate response for you (it is taken from W. Durfendorfer 'Thesis and Anti-thesis in Working-class Politics' (Stanford University Press, 1996), p.87):


Either remove the boxing gloves, or get a new set of fingers.

Profound, eh?

[JimFar]

Rosa wrote:


Apathy M, all we need is science and more science, if it cannot explain something, philosophy stands no chance.

Why?

Philosophers have been unable to solve single problem in 2500 years of trying (nor have they even looked like they ever could).

I am not sure that I would quite agree with that. It seems to me that philosophers have on occasion manage to solve certain kinds of problems or at least point the way to the possible solution of certain problems, or barring that, scientists have on more than one occasion manage to take problems that had been relegated to the philosophers and have managed to find ways of approaching them that make them appear to be soluble. When that sort of thing has happened, the area of discussion is relabeled as science, and so is taken out of the hands of the philosophers, leaving them with the unsolved, if not insoluble, problems. One example that comes to mind is cosmology. For thousands of years, cosmology was the domain of the theologians and philosophers. People debated whether the universe was finite or infinite and whether it had a begining in time or whether it had always existed. These questions were debated in almost strictly metaphysical or theological terms, since there were hardly any testable hypotheses in this field. This situation began to change in the early 20th century. Einstein's theory of general relativity implied the existence of several different models of the cosmos, as solutions of his field equations, when applied to the cosmos as a whole. Furthermore, it was possible to distinguish between these different possible models on empirical grounds. thus leading to testable hypotheses concerning the structure of the cosmos. There was the discovery by astronomers in the early 20th century that distant nebulae had peculiar light spectra in which their light spectra were shifted toward the red end of the spectrum. In 1929, the astronomer Edwin Hubble compared the galaxies' spectra with their distances, calculated using different methods, and showed that the amount of "red shift" was proportional to distance. Hubble realized that the most obvious explanation for the "red shift" was that the galaxies were receding from Earth and each other, and the farther the galaxy, the faster the recession.

This discovery implied that certain models concerning the structure of the cosmos were admissible, while ruling out other models like static models. If Hubble's interpretation of the red shift was correct, then we are living in an expanding universe. After this, two rival theories concerning the nature of the cosmos emerged: the Big Bang theory, developed by people like George Gamow, which posited that the expanding universe had originated from a single point, some 10 - 20 billion years ago, versus the Steady State theory that was developed by people like Fred Hoyle and Herman Bondi, which posited a universe that has always existed and always will. According to the Steady State theory, the universe has always been expanding, and always would. Nevertheless, over time, the cosmological density would remain constant because of a small but continous creation of matter-energy.

Gamow predicted that if the Big Bang theory was correct there would be a leftover radiation "signature", which he thoughtt might be detectable. He calculated the original temperature of the explosion, took into account the temperature reduction that would be caused by the universe's subsequent expansion and arrived at a figure of about 5 degrees Kelvin. Likewise, the proponents of the Steady State theory, taking a cue from Karl Popper, sought to cast their theory into an empirically falsifiable form, stating the kinds of observations that could refute their theory. The existence of background radition was considered by them to be the sort of thing that if discovered would refute their theory. In the 1960s, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson of AT&T Bell Laboratories, were trying to improve microwave communications by reducing antenna noise. They found a noise in their antenna they simply couldn't eliminate. They considered all kinds of possibilities including bird droppings, but nothing helped. If the antenna was pointed at the sky, the noise appeared. The pointing direction and time of day didn't matter.

They finally called an astrophysicist at Princeton, who told them what the signal probably was, hung up the phone, turned to his associates and said, "We've been scooped." The annoying noise was, in fact, the primordial radiation left over from the Big Bang. Penzias & Wilson won the Nobel Prize for their discovery. Most of the original proponents of the Steady State Theory (with the notable exception of Fred Hoyle) took this discovery as having refuted their theory.

My point of going through this brief history of 20th century cosmology, is to point out how an area of study that had always been considered to be a part of philosophy could become a part of science. Once it was possible to formulate testable hyptheses concerning the nature and structure of the cosmos, it became possible to turn questions concerning the origins of the universe over to astronomers and physicists.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Ah, Jim, you are back!

While I do not disagree with much of what you say, as you know, it depends on how several of these rather vague terms are defined (i.e., in use).

If, like me, you see the theories and 'laws' that scientists invent as 'forms of representation' (roughly the equivalent of Kuhn's 'paradigms'), then, if these are seen as rules, and not metaphysical truths, I'd have to agree with you (in that case, a philosophy of science would amount to no more than the clarification of these rules, on lines similar to Kuhn, but I'd throw in a little David Bloor, too).

In that case, I'd have no objection to a 'philosophy' of science, but I suspect I'd be in a vanishingly small minority.

If on the other hand, the bogus theories that philosophers concoct are seen as metaphysical theses/necessaty truths (as opposed to new, but non-material, conventions, as Wittgenstein argued -- except he did no use the word 'non-material'), I'd have to disagree.

[I try to say why in Essay Twelve (you can read the summary at my site -- that Essay will be posted next year some time).]

In that case, we do not need a 'philosophy' of science, just a shredder.

[hoopla]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 23 2006, 05:00 PM
Hoopla:


If you, as a working class person, had to agree to whether the independence thesis (Our judgements answer to their truth to a world which exists independently of our semses) and the knowledge thesis (By and large we can know which of these judgements are true), where would you stand.

I gave this a lot of thought, and I think I have the appropriate response for you (it is taken from W. Durfendorfer 'Thesis and Anti-thesis in Working-class Politics' (Stanford University Press, 1996), p.87):


Either remove the boxing gloves, or get a new set of fingers.

Profound, eh?
Thanks :rolleyes:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hoopla:


Thanks

I can't believe you could not work that out for yourself.

Or, maybe I can....

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Nothing can be proved beyond doubt, IMO.

Apart from perhaps "There are appearances".

-Alex

[hoopla]

If, like me, you see the theories and 'laws' that scientists invent as 'forms of representation' (roughly the equivalent of Kuhn's 'paradigms'), then, if these are seen as rules, and not metaphysical truths, I'd have to agree with you (in that case, a philosophy of science would amount to no more than the clarification of these rules, on lines similar to Kuhn, but I'd throw in a little David Bloor, too).How so, Rosa? :huh:

Does the same apply to Marxism? :huh:


Apathy M, all we need is science and more science, if it cannot explain something, philosophy stands no chance.

Isn't this scientism, or positivism, or something. No technonocracy here, then? I keep seeing words like "positivism", but I don't know what to make of them :huh:

Thanks

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hoopla:


How so, Rosa?

Does the same apply to Marxism?

Remember what Marx said in the German Ideology?


Either remove the boxing gloves, or get a new set of fingers.

Yes, I had forgotten it too....

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Burn:


Nothing can be proved beyond doubt, IMO.

Can you prove that?

If so, you can't (since it is false).

If not, there is good reason to doubt it.

Either way, it is not a sound maxim.

[hoopla]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 23 2006, 09:18 PM
Burn:


Nothing can be proved beyond doubt, IMO.

Can you prove that?

If so, you can't (since it is false).

If not, there is good reason to doubt it.

Either way, it is not as sound maxim.
as...

:lol:

[hoopla]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 23 2006, 09:14 PM
Hoopla:


How so, Rosa?

Does the same apply to Marxism?

Remember what Marx said in the German Ideology?


Either remove the boxing gloves, or get a new set of fingers.

Yes, I had forgotten it too....
Are you a positivist Rosa? Isn't that a bit Stalinist?

If you don't understand what I've written, Rosa, I don't think your essays will be worth reading :lol:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hoopla:


Are you a positivist Rosa? Isn't that a bit Stalinist?

If you don't understand what I've written, Rosa, I don't think your essays will be worth reading

That's a pity, since the opening words of my next essay will be:


"Either remove the boxing gloves, or get a new set of fingers" [ZZ Hoopla, 'How Jesus taught me to type' Journal of the Bleeding Obvious, volume 54 (2006), p.987].

As you can see, I got these wise words from you.

Thanks!

[The Sloth]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 22 2006, 10:29 AM
Hence, my constant argument against the need for a philosophy of any sort.
philosophy may be useless, but it's fun. :)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BM:


philosophy may be useless, but it's fun.

I agree: about as much fun as watching one's toenails grow -- at least they will get further after 2500 years!

[hoopla]

Originally posted by Rosa Lichtenstein+Jul 24 2006, 10:24 PM--> (Rosa Lichtenstein @ Jul 24 2006, 10:24 PM) Hoopla:


Are you a positivist Rosa? Isn't that a bit Stalinist?

If you don't understand what I've written, Rosa, I don't think your essays will be worth reading

That's a pity, since the opening words of my next essay will be:


"Either remove the boxing gloves, or get a new set of fingers" [ZZ Hoopla, 'How Jesus taught me to type' Journal of the Bleeding Obvious, volume 54 (2006), p.987].

As you can see, I got these wise words from you.

Thanks! [/b]

hoopla
any claims that what we are talking about is meaningless, will HAVE to be shown to be true http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...pic=52498&st=25 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=52498&st=25)
:angry:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hoopla:

Guess what:


Either remove the boxing gloves, or get a new set of fingers