|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
50.104.194.211
In Reply to: RE: Faith has much to do with it... posted by josh358 on July 15, 2012 at 09:01:33
"As it happens, I do not think that there is any scientific reason to recognize a distinction between the noumenal and the phenomenal worlds. They are one and the same."
You are fee to assume that, but you can never *know* that to be the case. Moreover, your choosing to believe it does not make it factual. You believe it because it dovetails with your zeitgeist. As D’Souza points out, no one has ever refuted Kant’s claim.
Follow Ups:
The absence of refutation elevates Kant's claim to the realm of possibility, but not the realm of probability.
You speak in terms of knowing. The truth of propositions in mathematics, to the incomplete extent that propositions made within an axiomatic system can be proved to be true or false, is knowable. Ditto for a logical system, which is merely mathematics in different clothing. But other than that, there is no reason to believe that anything can be known with certainty. To demand that it be so known is to make a straw man argument, and to use that demand to support an unfalsifiable proposition like Kant's is to engage in flying spaghetti monsterism.
Since Kant's proposition can't be tested logically, it falls, to the extent that it can be tested, within the realm of empirical science, and it is on that basis that I reject it, without ever being able to disprove it.
The most productive falsifiable theories that we have today all point in the direction of the supposed noumenal and phenomenal worlds as being one and the same. I came years ago to believe that physics and mathematics (of which logic and thought are applications) are one and the same. The fact that physics so often comes out of already discovered mathematics, e.g., non-Euclidean geometry and group theory, and that we're regularly able to find mathematical descriptions for physical phenomena, e.g., calculus, points to that. So does the fact that our thoughts and feelings increasingly are found to correspond to a physical entity operating according to physical laws, the brain. It is in a way unsurprising that we can understand some of what makes the world tick, since it would seem that we are, in effect, part of the physical universe modeling itself.
"Since Kant's proposition can't be tested logically, it falls, to the extent that it can be tested, within the realm of empirical science, and it is on that basis that I reject it, without ever being able to disprove it."
So to in order to be consistent, I take it that you would also reject String Theory? Watching an episode of NOVA on PBS the other evening there was a fascinating discussion about ST. Professor Weinberg and two other physicists noted that a theory that cannot provide a testable prediction (ST cannot) is not science; it's philosophy, and therefore we should not accept it in a scientific sense.
An astute observation. However, falsifiability doesn't require that a theory be falsifiable *with the equipment or understanding we have now.* It need only be falsifiable in principle. There's no reason to suppose that string theory won't be falsifiable once our understanding of the math improves to the point at which we can use it to make predictions about the physical world.
Another example might be the various quantum interpretations. The many-worlds and Copenhagen interpretations make identical predictions. And we can't observe other quantum worlds. There are those who say that, since they can't even in principle be observed, the distinction isn't a matter of science. I'm skeptical of that, personally. The theory that is simplest is the one favored by science, and it seems to me that the Copenhagen interpretation introduces unnecessary multiplication of entities. But it is said.
However, getting back to string theory -- I think it can be argued that a scientific theory gains credence not just on the basis of experiment or observation, though this is the ultimate arbiter. Any physicist will tell you that some theories are beautiful. They are so elegant and powerful that they almost have to be true. I have often been able to provisionally dismiss a new theory because it was inelegant.
As far as I know, philosophy of science hasn't progressed to the point at which it can explain or appreciate this phenomenon (although this may be more a reflection of my ignorance of the philosophy of science than anything else). I believe that Kant was, as so often, ahead of the curve when he said in the Critique of Practical Judgment, "That which is beautiful is that which has subjective purposiveness for cognition." I believe that we've evolved a nose for truth, and the most capable theorists use this more than many, who think that science is a dry matter of experiment, explanation, and experiment, believe.
It's also true that some successful theories are implicit in what is already known, e.g., Maxwell's equations can be derived from Special Relativity and Coulomb's Law, and Einstein himself famously (and mind-bogglingly) hit upon SR after performing a thought experiment in which he visualized himself riding a wave of light.
Sylvester James Gates, Jr. is a leading proponent of String Theory and of course knows *much* more about the subject than you or I. He wants ST to become a credible theory in the worst way. You might say he has a vested interest in seeing it succeed. And yet I’m struck by the candor, honesty and modesty he brings to the debate. Would that more scientists were this comfortable and intellectually honest when discussing their pet theories.
Gates: The well-known physicist and Nobel laureate Sheldon Glashow once supposedly described string theory as the theory of everything that predicts nothing. At the end of the day, if string theory does not provide us with a testable prediction—whether it be in the context of elementary particle physics or cosmology and black hole physics—then nobody should believe it.
Gates: String theory is often criticized as having had no experimental input or output, so the analogy to a religion has been noted by a number of people. In a sense that's right; it is kind of a church to which I belong. We have our own popes and House of Cardinals. But ultimately science is also an act of faith—faith that we will be capable of understanding the way the universe is put together.
NOVA: But what are the reasons for believing that string theory is correct?
Gates: The power of science is an acceptance and openness to the notion that we are fallible and must therefore be corrected by nature herself. Many other human belief systems start off with the assumption that the answer is already known. In science, it's precisely the opposite; we start out admitting to not knowing the answer. So as we struggle with our marriages of space and time, our addition of extra dimensions, our paradigm shifts from little billiard balls to little pieces of spaghetti, these exercises are all subjected to a single question: Is it there in the laboratory? Can you find its evidence? Until that happens, I am of the opinion that you should be skeptical about string theory.
Going for a walk and then dinner.
And yet, I think his frustration is quite common among physicists who are working on string theory. Physics is an empirical science, and theories rise and fall on experiment.
A theory, however elegant, must be falsifiable to be considered science. String theory is undoubtedly that, but until experiments can be proposed and conducted its position will be a tenuous one. Not, however, a completely tenuous one, since it a) is an outgrowth of current, very successful falsifiable theories and b) has been handed to us by mathematics -- a gift of God, so to speak.
I do think he's wrong about faith. IMO, the best science can do is treat its own results scientifically, that is, as provisional. So far, it has been remarkably successful. That's a matter of observation, with the utility of the scientific method itself the falsifiable hypothesis. But it could all stop working tomorrow. Boulders could float away. Water could burst into flame. Science can't say that won't happen, but, since it hasn't, the hypothesis that it will is provisionally judged a failed one.
My point here (yeah, I know, I know, I'm getting to it) is that the acceptance of fallibility extends to all scientific results, and is IMO one of the main advantages that science has over other ways of looking at phenomena, such as philosophical system building or religious belief. Both trap themselves by assuming that our knowledge is complete when it isn't.
"Water could burst into flame."
Well I read the following headline yesterday in the Register-Guard:
"Women burned after igniting oxygen".
And I didn't think that was possible either, maybe the hold of science is starting to slip...
Rick
LOL, either that, or the scientific knowledge of headline writers . . .
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: