Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

[Alberto G. Corona]

That's right. I´m not joking if i say that the thing that discredited
philosophers definitively was relativity, quantum mechanics and their
realization: the atomic bomb. That is the event that raised physicalism, a
branch of logical positivism and analytical philosophy, and discredited any
other way of thinking. That was so strong that that way of thinking became
THE reality. Like the fish presupposes the water.  People, not even
scientist know that they are ferocious logical positivists. Since then,
biologism and computationalism, two other branches of positivism have been
of fashion since the cloning of Dolly and the popularization of computers.

Before that, philosophy, or the philosophical debate, like before religion
was on the top. People killed one another in the name of philosophical
concepts. All the ideologies of the XX century invoked prominent
philosophers.

That is not only fashion. IMHO this is religion. As Voegelin said, what is
in common in all these movements, branches and ideologies, from physicalism
to biologism to computationalism to comunism to nazism to ecologism etc is
the notion of utopy, that is the common ground of modernity. All of them
propose a end of history and a perfect state of things, or at least a
straigh path to eternal improvement trough knowledge and investment in the
particular things that they are promoting, while despise any other kind of
effort. The paradise is just tomorrow (if you follow me). You only have to
take a look at Scientific American or any other publication of this kind.
Behind these ideas they are the inmortal desires and hopes of religion, and
, more concrete,  a kind of gnostic christianism.


2013/9/7 

> I don't agree that philosophers do have a bad name, save that they don't
> employ falsifiability. Falsifying was a term invented by a philosopher. I
> forget his name. Kark Popper! That's it! Also, many scientists by nature
> are logical positivists, even though this is a philosophical concept from
> the 19th century. On free will, I simply say that free will is knowing what
> you love or hate. An example would be asking a person carried off and
> bounced along the ground by a tornado, "How do you like it so far? And the
> victim could reply, Ah! I could do better without it." the victim would be
> correct of course, but that is free will-having an opinion of yourself.
> Free will doesn't seem to mean, in control of events.
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Craig Weinberg 
> To: everything-list 
> 
> >
> Sent: Fri, Sep 6, 2013 5:39 pm
> Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
>
> I don't think that having different concepts or perspectives means that
> people don't know what they are talking about. Free will is a concept which
> is so fundamental that it is literally necessary to have free will before
> you can ask the question of what it is. I think that it is the claim that
> we don't know or can't know what words like free will and consciousness
> refer to which are more of a distraction.
>
> In the days before computers, physicists and mathematicians spent decades
> poring over there slide rules and logarithm tables. Some made new
> discoveries, but most did not. I don't see any difference with
> philosophical debate. Not everyone wants to be limited to thinking about
> things which can be detected by inanimate objects. I wouldn't waste my time
> focusing so narrowly on that aspect of the universe, but I wouldn't
> begrudge someone else that right. Why should it bother me if people argue
> about esoteric terms or count blips from a particle accelerator?
>
>
> On Friday, September 6, 2013 2:34:51 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:This is
> what gives philosophers a bad name! In just one day people have sent the
> following philosophical gems to the list, enough hot air to signifacantly
> contribute to global warming,
>
> * I  also do not “KNOW” whether or not I really do have “free will”. But
> if I do [blah blah]
>
> * How do you explain the experience of “free will” then?
>
> * The experience of free will is not a snap shot, instead it [blah blah]
>
> * If free will exists (and also of course that we have it) then [blah blah]
>
> * If instead free will does not in fact exist, then [blah blah]
>
> * consciousness necessarily must exist in the first place in order for
> free will to exist.
>
> * Are you maintain that the experience of free will does not itself exist?
>
> * Can you conceive of “free will” without introducing a subject in which
> it arises and is experienced?
>
>
> And so it goes, on and on arguing about if free will exists or not, but
> never once does anybody stop to ask what the hell "free will" means before
> giving their opinion about it's existence. People argue passionately but
> they don't know what they're talking about, by that I don't mean that what
> they are saying is wrong, I mean that they quite literally DON'T KNOW WHAT
> THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT.
>
> When he was a student at Princeton Richard Feynman had an

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

[Alberto G. Corona]

What drives this change? the same drive than in the ancient times: If A
people defeat B people, then B people agree that A gods is stronger that B
gods. The atomic bomb, the cloning, the magic of the computers are, in the
mind of the stone-age brain of the humans, manifestations of the gods of
modernity, and their priests are prominent political and scientific
figures. If the moors had defeated the French in Poitiers, well all would
believe in Allah.


2013/9/7 Alberto G. Corona 

> That's right. I´m not joking if i say that the thing that discredited
> philosophers definitively was relativity, quantum mechanics and their
> realization: the atomic bomb. That is the event that raised physicalism, a
> branch of logical positivism and analytical philosophy, and discredited any
> other way of thinking. That was so strong that that way of thinking became
> THE reality. Like the fish presupposes the water.  People, not even
> scientist know that they are ferocious logical positivists. Since then,
> biologism and computationalism, two other branches of positivism have been
> of fashion since the cloning of Dolly and the popularization of computers.
>
> Before that, philosophy, or the philosophical debate, like before religion
> was on the top. People killed one another in the name of philosophical
> concepts. All the ideologies of the XX century invoked prominent
> philosophers.
>
> That is not only fashion. IMHO this is religion. As Voegelin said, what is
> in common in all these movements, branches and ideologies, from physicalism
> to biologism to computationalism to comunism to nazism to ecologism etc is
> the notion of utopy, that is the common ground of modernity. All of them
> propose a end of history and a perfect state of things, or at least a
> straigh path to eternal improvement trough knowledge and investment in the
> particular things that they are promoting, while despise any other kind of
> effort. The paradise is just tomorrow (if you follow me). You only have to
> take a look at Scientific American or any other publication of this kind.
> Behind these ideas they are the inmortal desires and hopes of religion, and
> , more concrete,  a kind of gnostic christianism.
>
>
> 2013/9/7 
>
> I don't agree that philosophers do have a bad name, save that they don't
>> employ falsifiability. Falsifying was a term invented by a philosopher. I
>> forget his name. Kark Popper! That's it! Also, many scientists by nature
>> are logical positivists, even though this is a philosophical concept from
>> the 19th century. On free will, I simply say that free will is knowing what
>> you love or hate. An example would be asking a person carried off and
>> bounced along the ground by a tornado, "How do you like it so far? And the
>> victim could reply, Ah! I could do better without it." the victim would be
>> correct of course, but that is free will-having an opinion of yourself.
>> Free will doesn't seem to mean, in control of events.
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Craig Weinberg 
>> To: everything-list 
>> 
>> >
>> Sent: Fri, Sep 6, 2013 5:39 pm
>> Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
>>
>> I don't think that having different concepts or perspectives means that
>> people don't know what they are talking about. Free will is a concept which
>> is so fundamental that it is literally necessary to have free will before
>> you can ask the question of what it is. I think that it is the claim that
>> we don't know or can't know what words like free will and consciousness
>> refer to which are more of a distraction.
>>
>> In the days before computers, physicists and mathematicians spent decades
>> poring over there slide rules and logarithm tables. Some made new
>> discoveries, but most did not. I don't see any difference with
>> philosophical debate. Not everyone wants to be limited to thinking about
>> things which can be detected by inanimate objects. I wouldn't waste my time
>> focusing so narrowly on that aspect of the universe, but I wouldn't
>> begrudge someone else that right. Why should it bother me if people argue
>> about esoteric terms or count blips from a particle accelerator?
>>
>>
>> On Friday, September 6, 2013 2:34:51 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:This is
>> what gives philosophers a bad name! In just one day people have sent the
>> following philosophical gems to the list, enough hot air to signifacantly
>> contribute to global warming,
>>
>> * I  also do not “KNOW” whether or not I really do have “free will”. But
>> if I do [blah blah]
>>
>> * How do you explain the experience of “free will” then?
>>
>> * The experience of free will is not a snap shot, instead it [blah blah]
>>
>> * If free will exists (and also of course that we have it) then [blah
>> blah]
>>
>> * If instead free will does not in fact exist, then [blah blah]
>>
>> * consciousness necessarily must exist in the first place in order for
>> free will to exist.
>>
>> * Are you maintain that the experience of free will do

Re: David Bohm: Thought as a System

[Evgenii Rudnyi]

I have finished reading the book. As usual, there is no direct answer. 
Well,


p. 220 "freedom is the creative perception of a new order of necessity."

Evgenii
--

http://blog.rudnyi.ru/tag/david-bohm

--
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.

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

[spudboy100]

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 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Sat, Sep 7, 2013 12:06 am
Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?


On Fri, Sep 6, 2013   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 a

Obama's pet

[Roger Clough]

Obama's pet

John Boehner, you're Obamna's pet, 
you whimper and your cowell,
You never show your fangs or bite, 
you never bark or growl
So when we're stuck with BoennerCare, 
we'll take you to a vet
And have you fixed up properly 
to safely be his pet.  

- Roger Clough

Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000]
See my Leibniz site at
http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough

-- 
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.

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

[Alberto G. Corona]

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 

>  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 
> To: everything-list 
> Sent: Sat, Sep 7, 2013 12:06 am
> Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?
>
>  On Fri, Sep 6, 2013   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 s

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

[Craig Weinberg]

>
> > Free will doesn't seem to mean, in control of events.
>>
>
> Free will doesn't seem to mean anything, not one damn thing;
>

Free will means that your own will is relatively unopposed. When nothing is 
overtly coercing you 'against your will', then you are free to exercise 
your own will as you wish. In your imagination, your are relatively free to 
conjure up may more dreams and actions than you can ever actualize 
publicly. Your will is therefore more free within yourself than beyond the 
confines of your body. Free will doesn't have to be absolutely free, it 
just refers to whatever degree of freedom we are used to.

-- 
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.

RE: What gives philosophers a bad name?

[chris peck]

Hi Alberto
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.
Very nicely put. I agree that what was pernicious about Popper was the attempt 
to demarcate between what was and was not science and to recommend the 
imposition of a single method upon the whole endeavour.
All the best.
Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2013 07:09:54 -0700
From: whatsons...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?




> Free will doesn't seem to mean, in control of events.

Free will doesn't seem to mean anything, not one damn thing;

Free will means that your own will is relatively unopposed. When nothing is 
overtly coercing you 'against your will', then you are free to exercise your 
own will as you wish. In your imagination, your are relatively free to conjure 
up may more dreams and actions than you can ever actualize publicly. Your will 
is therefore more free within yourself than beyond the confines of your body. 
Free will doesn't have to be absolutely free, it just refers to whatever degree 
of freedom we are used to.





-- 

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.

RE: Obama's pet

[Chris de Morsella]

Treating this forum as if it were your personal political pulpit; it's like
farting in an elevator!

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Roger Clough
Sent: Saturday, September 07, 2013 7:25 AM
To: - Roger Clough
Subject: Obama's pet

 

 

Obama's pet

 

John Boehner, you're Obamna's pet, 

you whimper and your cowell,

You never show your fangs or bite, 

you never bark or growl

So when we're stuck with BoennerCare, 

we'll take you to a vet

And have you fixed up properly 

to safely be his pet.  

 

- Roger Clough

 

Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000]

See my Leibniz site at

 
http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough

-- 
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.

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

[meekerdb]

On 9/7/2013 12:40 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
That's right. I´m not joking if i say that the thing that discredited philosophers 
definitively was relativity, quantum mechanics and their realization: the atomic bomb. 
That is the event that raised physicalism, a branch of logical positivism and analytical 
philosophy, and discredited any other way of thinking.


If by "physicalism" you mean the meta- of physics, then it's not positivism.  Positivism 
hasn't been considered a good meta-physics since Mach.  Too many unobservable things: 
atoms, photons, quarks, virtual particles,... turned out to make good empirical models.


Brent

--
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.

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

[spudboy100]

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 
To: everything-list 
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  

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 exper

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

[spudboy100]

Yet, there's lots of scientists in public forums like this, who embrace logical 
positivism. I am not saying this is a good thing, but something I have 
experienced. 


-Original Message-
From: meekerdb 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Sat, Sep 7, 2013 4:16 pm
Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?


  

On 9/7/2013 12:40 AM, Alberto G. Corona  wrote:


That's right. I´m not joking if i say that the thing  that discredited 
philosophers definitively was relativity, quantum  mechanics and their 
realization: the atomic bomb. That is the  event that raised physicalism, a 
branch of logical positivism and  analytical philosophy, and discredited 
any other way of thinking.

If by "physicalism" you  mean the meta- of physics, then it's not 
positivism.  Positivism  hasn't been considered a good meta-physics since 
Mach.  Too many  unobservable things: atoms, photons, quarks, virtual 
particles,...  turned out to make good empirical models.
  
  Brent
  

-- 
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.

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

[Alberto G. Corona]

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 

>  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 
> To: everything-list 
> 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

Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

[meekerdb]

Do they deny the existence of electrons? quarks? as Mach denied atoms.

Brent



On 9/7/2013 3:52 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:
Yet, there's lots of scientists in public forums like this, who embrace logical 
positivism. I am not saying this is a good thing, but something I have experienced.

-Original Message-
From: meekerdb 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Sat, Sep 7, 2013 4:16 pm
Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

On 9/7/2013 12:40 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
That's right. I´m not joking if i say that the thing that discredited philosophers 
definitively was relativity, quantum mechanics and their realization: the atomic bomb. 
That is the event that raised physicalism, a branch of logical positivism and 
analytical philosophy, and discredited any other way of thinking.


If by "physicalism" you mean the meta- of physics, then it's not positivism.  Positivism 
hasn't been considered a good meta-physics since Mach.  Too many unobservable things: 
atoms, photons, quarks, virtual particles,... turned out to make good empirical models.


Brent
--
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.

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
Version: 2013.0.3392 / Virus Database: 3222/6645 - Release Date: 09/07/13



--
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.

RE: What gives philosophers a bad name?

[chris peck]

Hi John

>>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.  

I don't have any problem with Popper's comments here. I see no reason 
whatsoever for 'Popper fans or fans of philosophers of science' to be concerned 
in the slightest.

First of all, be clear about what Popper said. After describing Darwinism as a 
metaphysical research program he continues:

And yet, the theory is invaluable. I do not see how, without it, our knowledge 
could have grown as it has done since Darwin. In trying to explain experiments 
with bacteria which become adapted to, say, penicillin, it is quite clear that 
we are greatly helped by the theory of natural selection. Although it is 
metaphysical, it sheds much light upon very concrete and very practical 
researches. It allows us to study adaptation to a new environment (such as a 
penicillin-infested environment) in a rational way: it suggests the existence 
of a mechanism of adaptation, and it allows us even to study in detail the 
mechanism at work. And it is the only theory so far which does all that. 

Clearly Popper had huge respect for Darwinism. People misunderstand Popper 
here. For him 'metaphysical research programmes' were an essential part of 
science. It isn't a derogative term you know?

Furthermore, in regarding natural selection as untestable he followed in the 
footsteps of many Darwinists. It was quite common to think that the concept of 
'survival of the fittest' involved circular reasoning and was therefore 
tautological. ie.  'fittest' is defined as 'those that survive' and so 
'survival of the fittest' amounts to saying 'the survivors survive'. Can't see 
that ever being falsified. Of course, the gaff is that Darwin never used the 
term survival of the fittest. It is a gaff, but it isn't a big one.

Secondly, I admire Popper for not just accepting Darwinism by rote. For calling 
things as he saw them, even if he called it wrong. Good for him. The fact he 
later acknowledged his mistake shows him to be honest. I like people who can 
admit they were wrong. No. Theres nothing here to embarrass anyone.

All the best.

Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2013 18:51:40 -0700
From: meeke...@verizon.net
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?


  

  
  
Do they deny the existence of
  electrons? quarks? as Mach denied atoms.

  

  Brent

  

  

  

  On 9/7/2013 3:52 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:



Yet, there's lots of scientists in
public forums like this, who embrace logical positivism. I
am not saying this is a good thing, but something I have
experienced. 
-Original Message-

  From: meekerdb 

  To: everything-list 

  Sent: Sat, Sep 7, 2013 4:16 pm

  Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

  

  

  On 9/7/2013 12:40 AM, Alberto
G. Corona wrote:

  
  That's right. I´m not joking if i
say that the thing that discredited philosophers
definitively was relativity, quantum mechanics and their
realization: the atomic bomb. That is the event that
raised physicalism, a branch of logical positivism and
analytical philosophy, and discredited any other way of
thinking.
  

  If by
"physicalism" you mean the meta- of physics, then it's
not positivism.  Positivism hasn't been considered a
good meta-physics since Mach.  Too many unobservable
things: atoms, photons, quarks, virtual particles,...
turned out to make good empirical models.



Brent

   
-- 

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 subscrib