Spudboy, Feyerabend did not use the Heisenberg principle. It says something more simple but more fundamental, and because is more fundamental is difficult to grasp: The facts or the experimental data are interpreted by some theory that has been assumed previously. Sometimes this theory is the same than the one supposed to test with the data.
The Example that Feyerabend uses is the dispute between Galileo and the aristotelians about if the heart is moving or not. According with the implicit aristotelian, and common sense theory , a stone falls vertically a distance of a few meters to the ground. According with Galileo, the stone moves at high speed a few kilometers with the movement of the heart around the sun until it impact the ground. So even in the measure of distances, one must use a theory, >From the wikipedia: Feyerabend was critical of any guideline that aimed to judge the quality of scientific theories by comparing them to known facts. He thought that previous theory might influence natural interpretations of observed phenomena. Scientists necessarily make implicit assumptions when comparing scientific theories to facts that they observe. Such assumptions need to be changed in order to make the new theory compatible with observations. The main example of the influence of natural interpretations that Feyerabend provided was the *tower argument*. The tower argument was one of the main objections against the theory of a moving earth. Aristotelians assumed that the fact that a stone which is dropped from a tower lands directly beneath it shows that the earth is stationary. They thought that, if the earth moved while the stone was falling, the stone would have been "left behind". Objects would fall diagonally instead of vertically. Since this does not happen, Aristotelians thought that it was evident that the earth did not move. If one uses ancient theories of impulse and relative motion, the Copernican theory indeed appears to be falsified by the fact that objects fall vertically on earth. This observation required a new interpretation to make it compatible with Copernican theory. Galileo was able to make such a change about the nature of impulse and relative motion. Before such theories were articulated, Galileo had to make use of ad hoc methods and proceed counterinductively. So, "ad hoc" hypotheses actually have a positive function: they temporarily make a new theory compatible with facts until the theory to be defended can be supported by other theories. 2013/9/8 <spudboy...@aol.com> > Yes, your reading Feyerabend, suggests that the philosopher > unintentionally echos Heisenberg and the uncertainty principle, > Schrodinger, and such. I think that philosophers can help with the process > of learning or teaching physical principles, leaving the bench scientists., > free to pursue science. > > In the other side, as Feyerabend said, there is no such thing as pure > experimental data. To gather data you need a theory in the first place. > there are no data devoid of any preconceived theory. That is not a marxist, > nor relativist interpretantion of science but something simple to > understand. That is easily verifiable if you think that to construct a > method of measure, you often must make use of the very theory that you > have to test. Galileo had the experimental data against him, because, > nobody detected that earth was moving. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Alberto G. Corona <agocor...@gmail.com> > To: everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com> > Sent: Sat, Sep 7, 2013 9:58 am > Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name? > > But falsability is not a complete criterion for a scientific theory. It > is not a "demarcation" that separate science from not science and forces an > artificial reductionism. > > First, the experimentation can not be done ever in every science. Not > only cosmology and meteorology but also in human sciences it is almost > impossible to perform a controlled experiments. Some economy laws, not to > tell in other old discipliones like moral sciences and so on, many laws > have a time span for verification that may range from years to generations, > and apply to a great number of individuals. Others, like in the case of > philosophy, study the world of the mind, not the phenomena. Logical > positivist would say , and in fact say, that they are not sciences. The > result is the unlearning of the empirical laws learned trough this greatest > experiment of all, that is life across generations. This vital knowledge > configure the common sense, bot innately in the form of instinctive > intuitions as well as culturally, in the form of learned traditions, > sometimes a mix of the two. Positivism and its last incarnation > falsacionism presupposes an unlearning of anything still not tested. The > consecuences are disastrous policies and ruined individual lifes. It is no > surprise that this narrow criteria of truth is a sure path for social > engineering and totalitarianism. > > In the other side, as Feyerabend said, there is no such thing as pure > experimental data. To gather data you need a theory in the first place. > there are no data devoid of any preconceived theory. That is not a marxist, > nor relativist interpretantion of science but something simple to > understand. That is easily verifiable if you think that to construct a > method of measure, you often must make use of the very theory that you > have to test. Galileo had the experimental data against him, because, > nobody detected that earth was moving. He had to reinterpret the > experimental data, in complicated ways to make it credible, while the > geocentrism was locally a simpler theory of the terrestrial facts, the ones > for which me most abundant data were available. > > > 2013/9/7 <spudboy...@aol.com> > >> Popper deserves street cred, for being a good observer, I will say. >> Also, consider that physicists who write for non-physicists, tend to know >> Popper, well enough to use hos name or quote him. I was thinking that John >> Baez, did use Popper's name, a time or two, when defending his conformist >> views of physics (Though I bet he'd call himself a no-shit guy), I'd just >> chuck him (for my own nefarious, purposes, in the A-hole pile). Most often, >> physicists, don't have to be nasty (tho' they feel they do!!!), and that's >> what makes ballgames, as we say in the States. There are philosopher guys, >> like the Austrian, Rudiger Vaas, and Canadian philosopher, John Leslie, who >> studied physics, and wanted their knowledge to inform their philosophy. I >> think they succeeded. >> Then there is the Austrian experimentalist, Anton Zeilinger, who a year >> ago was looking for a philosopher, to better. explain, the results of his >> experients to the world, and perhaps, other, scientists? I don't know if >> he's got a book, coming forth of not? Explaining, what you do, and what it >> means are two different things (agreed?) and explaining theory and >> experiementation to the unwashed public seems infuriating to many bench >> scientists. An example of this is the quantum. Nobody gets more pissed off >> (not pissed-drunk in the English verbage) as physicists, explaining why, >> for example, quantum computation is impossible unless we invoke very cold >> temperatures. I say to myself: "Wait! This can't be right. Because the >> quantum is usually comprised of the actions of photons and electrons, and >> they are subatomic, which by definition is quantum. Sticks, bird poop, >> rocks, have the flow of electrons, right? So, thus quantum computing must >> be happening. No! idiot! Then, in forums such as this they sulk away, >> probably feeling sullied by the experience of dealing with ignorant >> riff-raff, such as me. What I didn't understand and didn't discover till >> this year, is the difference between quantum computation, and quantum >> effects. Ah! Ok! >> >> From my experiences, philosophers make decent observers, and try to take >> human meaning out from the science. Many scientists would say, if they are >> Not looking for grants, is that: There is no meaning, you idiot!. Which, >> sadly, sometimes, seems the truth. Yet, I would hope that occasionally, >> perhaps foolishly, we, the unwashed, can derrive some meaning from the >> grand pursuit. >> >> Mitch >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> >> To: everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com> >> Sent: Sat, Sep 7, 2013 12:06 am >> Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name? >> >> On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 <spudboy...@aol.com> wrote: >> >> > Falsifying was a term invented by a philosopher. I forget his name. >> >> >> Understandable, philosophers are not very memorable. And no philosopher >> invented falsifiability, some just made a big deal about something rather >> obvious that had already been in use by scientists for centuries; although >> way back then they were called Natural Philosophers, a term I wish we still >> used. >> >> > Kark Popper! That's it! >>> >> >> There is not a scientist alive that learned to do science by reading >> Karl Popper. Popper was just a reporter, he observed how scientists work >> and described what he saw. And I don't think Popper was exactly a fount of >> wisdom. >> >> In chapter 37 of his 1976 (1976!!) book "Unended Quest: An Intellectual >> Autobiography" Popper says: >> >> "Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical >> research program". >> >> Those are Popper's own words not mine, and this is not something to make >> Popper fans or fans of philosophers of science in general proud. Finally, >> two years later in 1978 at the age of 76 and 119 years after the >> publication of "The Origin Of Species", perhaps the greatest scientific >> book ever written, Popper belatedly said: >> >> “I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the >> theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a >> recantation”. >> >> Better late than never I guess, he came to the conclusion that this >> Darwin whippersnapper might be on to something after all in his 1978 >> (1978!!) lecture "Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind". >> >> > On free will, I simply say that free will is knowing what you love or >>> hate. >>> >> >> In a previous post I said "a particular set of likes and dislikes that >> in the English language is called "will". "Will" is not the problem, it's >> "free will" that's gibberish". >> >> > Free will doesn't seem to mean, in control of events. >>> >> >> Free will doesn't seem to mean anything, not one damn thing; but a little >> thing like not knowing what the hell "free will" is supposed to be never >> prevents philosophers passionately arguing if humans have it or not. >> Apparently the philosophers on this list have decided to first determine if >> humans have free will or not and only when that question has been entirely >> settled will they go on and try to figure out what on earth they were >> talking about. >> >> John K Clark >> >> >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Everything List" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Everything List" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> > > > > -- > Alberto. > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > -- Alberto. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
