Progress in the humanities

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Progress in the humanities

Rotoru: Sep 3, 2011

Orange Fluffy Sheep posted:

Juffo-Wup posted:
Could physicists today convince Newton to give up on absolute space and velocity? The answer seems to depend on facts about Newton's psychology, and the rhetorical skill of his interlocutor. Which are weird criteria by which to judge the success of a field.

Could we lend Newton our observations and technology for such? Or are we stuck with his technology in this attempt to convince him? Could we hand him an electron microscope?

I think everything necessary for at least special relativity already existed in his time, so it's just a matter of going through some proofs and doing a few experiments. Literally every physicist in the world should have no problems with the first and the second shouldn't be too much of a problem with Newton around so it pretty much would come down to psychology and "rhetorical skill".

That physicist would have much better luck than modern philosophers trying to convince those of the past though. The two disciplines may as well be inverses of each other. Physics has logic, reality and certainty. Philosophy has rhetoric, fantasy and uncertainty. Where the physicist can show beyond any doubt that something is incorrect a philosopher can not show with any certainty that he won't be convinced that he is wrong.

That does not mean that philosophy is worthless. It means that philosophy is as introverted and humanistic as physics is extroverted and mechanical, and that makes it very important. Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted.

# ? Sep 8, 2015 09:20

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 4, 2024 22:10

Constant Hamprince: Oct 24, 2010; by exmarx; College Slice

The social sciences have advanced by leaps in bounds in the last 50 years in the field of justifying their own uselessness.

# ? Sep 8, 2015 09:44

Juffo-Wup: Jan 13, 2005; Pillbug

Rotoru posted:

The two disciplines may as well be inverses of each other. Physics has logic, reality and certainty. Philosophy has rhetoric, fantasy and uncertainty.

This is a very strange sentence, I wonder where you got this idea. Have you ever engaged with any work of contemporary philosophy? Like, anything published in Phil Review in the past 50 years?

# ? Sep 8, 2015 12:27

computer parts: Nov 18, 2010; PLEASE CLAP

Juffo-Wup posted:

This is a very strange sentence, I wonder where you got this idea. Have you ever engaged with any work of contemporary philosophy? Like, anything published in Phil Review in the past 50 years?

Also any work in modern Physics (or a lot of STEM fields) will tell you that certainty is an illusion dependent on how low you want your rounding error to be.

# ? Sep 8, 2015 13:06

I AM GRANDO: Aug 20, 2006

quote:

I think everything necessary for at least special relativity already existed in his time, so it's just a matter of going through some proofs and doing a few experiments. Literally every physicist in the world should have no problems with the first and the second shouldn't be too much of a problem with Newton around so it pretty much would come down to psychology and "rhetorical skill".

That physicist would have much better luck than modern philosophers trying to convince those of the past though. The two disciplines may as well be inverses of each other. Physics has logic, reality and certainty. Philosophy has rhetoric, fantasy and uncertainty. Where the physicist can show beyond any doubt that something is incorrect a philosopher can not show with any certainty that he won't be convinced that he is wrong.

That does not mean that philosophy is worthless. It means that philosophy is as introverted and humanistic as physics is extroverted and mechanical, and that makes it very important. Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted.

Pretty sure a foundational claim of modern physics is that you can always be convinced that you were wrong. You may be thinking of theology?

# ? Sep 8, 2015 13:25

Pope Guilty: Nov 6, 2006; The human animal is a beautiful and terrible creature, capable of limitless compassion and unfathomable cruelty.

Look, I don't need to actually study philosophy to know that it's worthless. I've just derived its worthlessness from first prinoh my god I'm doing philosophy help

# ? Sep 8, 2015 13:37

The Belgian: Oct 28, 2008

Rotoru posted:

That physicist would have much better luck than modern philosophers trying to convince those of the past though. The two disciplines may as well be inverses of each other. Physics has logic, reality and certainty. Philosophy has rhetoric, fantasy and uncertainty. Where the physicist can show beyond any doubt that something is incorrect a philosopher can not show with any certainty that he won't be convinced that he is wrong.

Hahaha

Einstein posted:

How does it happen that a properly endowed natural scientist comes to concern himself with epistemology? Is there not some more valuable work to be done in his specialty? That's what I hear many of my colleagues ask, and I sense it from many more. But I cannot share this sentiment. When I think about the ablest students whom I have encountered in my teaching � that is, those who distinguish themselves by their independence of judgment and not just their quick-wittedness � I can affirm that they had a vigorous interest in epistemology. They happily began discussions about the goals and methods of science, and they showed unequivocally, through tenacious defense of their views, that the subject seemed important to them.
Concepts that have proven useful in ordering things easily achieve such authority over us that we forget their earthly origins and accept them as unalterable givens. [Begriffe, welche sich bei der Ordnung der Dinge als n�tzlich erwiesen haben, erlangen �ber uns leicht eine solche Autorit�t, dass wir ihres irdischen Ursprungs vergessen und sie als unab�nderliche Gegebenheiten hinnehmen.] Thus they might come to be stamped as "necessities of thought," "a priori givens," etc. The path of scientific progress is often made impassable for a long time by such errors. [Der Weg des wissenschaftlichen Fortschritts wird durch solche Irrt�mer oft f�r l�ngere Zeit ungangbar gemacht.] Therefore it is by no means an idle game if we become practiced in analysing long-held commonplace concepts and showing the circumstances on which their justification and usefulness depend, and how they have grown up, individually, out of the givens of experience. Thus their excessive authority will be broken. They will be removed if they cannot be properly legitimated, corrected if their correlation with given things be far too superfluous, or replaced if a new system can be established that we prefer for whatever reason.

The Belgian fucked around with this message at 14:36 on Sep 8, 2015

# ? Sep 8, 2015 14:33

Pinch Me Im Meming: Jun 26, 2005

Has anyone mentioned why oil paintings on canvass from the 18th century are much better than modern "art" yet? Or is this thread still in its infancy?

e: horrendifious spelling

Pinch Me Im Meming fucked around with this message at 16:54 on Sep 8, 2015

# ? Sep 8, 2015 15:21

Juffo-Wup: Jan 13, 2005; Pillbug

ReagaNOMNOMicks posted:

As anyone mentioned why oil paintings on canvass from the 18th century are much better than modern "art" yet? Or is this thread still in its infancy?

I know, right? Ugh,

what

shambles!

get it together, Art!

Edit:

Jack Gladney posted:

Pretty sure a foundational claim of modern physics is that you can always be convinced that you were wrong. You may be thinking of theology?

Oh, hey, yeah I missed this one. It's very strange indeed to claim that non-falsifiability is the main demarcation criterion for good science. Popper just turned over in his grave.

Juffo-Wup fucked around with this message at 16:35 on Sep 8, 2015

# ? Sep 8, 2015 16:10

sugar free jazz: Mar 5, 2008

Rotoru posted:

I think everything necessary for at least special relativity already existed in his time, so it's just a matter of going through some proofs and doing a few experiments. Literally every physicist in the world should have no problems with the first and the second shouldn't be too much of a problem with Newton around so it pretty much would come down to psychology and "rhetorical skill".

That physicist would have much better luck than modern philosophers trying to convince those of the past though. The two disciplines may as well be inverses of each other. Physics has logic, reality and certainty. Philosophy has rhetoric, fantasy and uncertainty. Where the physicist can show beyond any doubt that something is incorrect a philosopher can not show with any certainty that he won't be convinced that he is wrong.

That does not mean that philosophy is worthless. It means that philosophy is as introverted and humanistic as physics is extroverted and mechanical, and that makes it very important. Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted.

Lol good post. People actually think like that tho so it looks like yer being serious

# ? Sep 8, 2015 16:47

botany: Apr 27, 2013; by Lowtax

Juffo-Wup posted:

Oh, hey, yeah I missed this one. It's very strange indeed to claim that non-falsifiability is the main demarcation criterion for good science. Popper just turned over in his grave.

Am I misreading that post or are both of you? I though Rotoru said specifically that physics is falsifiable and philosophy isn't, which is the opposite of what Jack and you seem to be reading.

# ? Sep 8, 2015 18:00

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

botany posted:

Am I misreading that post or are both of you? I though Rotoru said specifically that physics is falsifiable and philosophy isn't, which is the opposite of what Jack and you seem to be reading.

I'm having trouble telling- Rotoru is definitely incorrect to say that physics (or, by extension, any science), is "certain", though. Popperian falsificationism is all about the impossibility of empirical certainty.

# ? Sep 8, 2015 18:18

botany: Apr 27, 2013; by Lowtax

As somebody who works in philosophy of science, it will never stop amusing me how many people outside of philosophy just love Popper. There are almost no Popperians left in philosophy, his ideas are way too removed from scientific practice to be of any actual value, but every physicist I've ever talked to about this thinks he's great. (Despite doing literally the opposite of what Popper claims they should do.) Not that your point about certainty is wrong, mind you.

# ? Sep 8, 2015 18:27

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

botany posted:

As somebody who works in philosophy of science, it will never stop amusing me how many people outside of philosophy just love Popper. There are almost no Popperians left in philosophy, his ideas are way too removed from scientific practice to be of any actual value, but every physicist I've ever talked to about this thinks he's great. (Despite doing literally the opposite of what Popper claims they should do.) Not that your point about certainty is wrong, mind you.

My undergrad degree is in philosophy and my graduate education is in social sciences. You're wrong about Popper and his relevance to scientific practice. To the extent that other subsequent philosophers better describe the practice of science, Popper prescribes it-those others merely identify the failings of scientists to conduct superior science.

To a significant degree, I suspect these issues between Popper and Kuhn et al. are, what this thread is about.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 18:37 on Sep 8, 2015

# ? Sep 8, 2015 18:34

I AM GRANDO: Aug 20, 2006

botany posted:

Am I misreading that post or are both of you? I though Rotoru said specifically that physics is falsifiable and philosophy isn't, which is the opposite of what Jack and you seem to be reading.

There's plenty in the sciences that's exactly as falsifiable as much from philosophy.

# ? Sep 8, 2015 18:41

Dreylad: Jun 19, 2001

the biggest "advance" in the humanities disassembled the narrative of progress or linear advancements towards some perfect future of understanding so there you go. we have progressed.

disciplinary pissing matches are silly. there's a growing trend towards interdisciplinary projects, trying to bridge epistemological differences between sciences and social sciences and humanities and art with varying success

Dreylad fucked around with this message at 18:48 on Sep 8, 2015

# ? Sep 8, 2015 18:46

botany: Apr 27, 2013; by Lowtax

Discendo Vox posted:

My undergrad degree is in philosophy and my graduate education is in social sciences. You're wrong about Popper and his relevance to scientific practice. To the extent that other subsequent philosophers better describe the practice of science, Popper prescribes it-those others merely identify the failings of scientists to conduct superior science.

To a significant degree, I suspect these issues between Popper and Kuhn et al. are, what this thread is about.

That's precisely why Popper is irrelevant. His approach is prescriptive, and incompatible with successful scientific practice. He's an old man yelling at the scientific community that they're doing it wrong, when what they're doing demonstrably works. He also has an extremely narrow understanding of what a scientific theory actually is, given that he identifies them exclusively with universal-quantifier statements. The idea that properly Popperian scientific practice would be better is an extremely strong and - in my opinion - implausible statement that you would have to give some significant amount of reasons and evidence for.

Jack Gladney posted:

There's plenty in the sciences that's exactly as falsifiable as much from philosophy.

I agree.

I'm just still not sure what the original post actually says.

# ? Sep 8, 2015 18:57

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

botany posted:

That's precisely why Popper is irrelevant. His approach is prescriptive, and incompatible with successful scientific practice. He's an old man yelling at the scientific community that they're doing it wrong, when what they're doing demonstrably works. He also has an extremely narrow understanding of what a scientific theory actually is, given that he identifies them exclusively with universal-quantifier statements. The idea that properly Popperian scientific practice would be better is an extremely strong and - in my opinion - implausible statement that you would have to give some significant amount of reasons and evidence for.

Current defects in scientific practice, including phenomena of theory conflict as expressed by Kuhn as well as more mundane system failures such as the advent of impact factors, reproducibility problems, and the very issues the social sciences struggle with are arising because these sciences are insufficiently scientific. A great deal of scientific practice is insufficiently rigorous in the allocation of uncertainty and claim structures in individual hypothesis tests.

Popper doesn't exclusively define scientific practice in terms of universal quantifier statements- you need to reread the last, well, from the sound of it anything past part 1 of the LoSD. You're describing a bad caricature of his work, which seems to be the depressing standard in philosophy these days.

Jack Gladney posted:

There's plenty in the sciences that's exactly as falsifiable as much from philosophy.

To the extent that it's less falsifiable, it's less scientific.

Pope Guilty posted:

Look, I don't need to actually study philosophy to know that it's worthless. I've just derived its worthlessness from first prinoh my god I'm doing philosophy help

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 19:16 on Sep 8, 2015

# ? Sep 8, 2015 19:06

Job Truniht: Nov 7, 2012; MY POSTS ARE REAL RETARDED, SIR

Rotoru posted:

The two disciplines may as well be inverses of each other. Physics has logic, reality and certainty. Philosophy has rhetoric, fantasy and uncertainty. Where the physicist can show beyond any doubt that something is incorrect a philosopher can not show with any certainty that he won't be convinced that he is wrong.

That does not mean that philosophy is worthless. It means that philosophy is as introverted and humanistic as physics is extroverted and mechanical, and that makes it very important. Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted.

Often or not, physicist and physical sciences tend to avoid question of "truth" and use it more of a logical convenience than something that is philosophically true. When you start writing papers, you will start running into walls about how theorems, corollaries, definitions, and terminology are appropriately used. This is especially true for mathematics.

e: In short, scientists seldom think about whether their logic is appropriately used, and that can be problematic.

Job Truniht fucked around with this message at 19:21 on Sep 8, 2015

# ? Sep 8, 2015 19:15

The Belgian: Oct 28, 2008

botany posted:

As somebody who works in philosophy of science, it will never stop amusing me how many people outside of philosophy just love Popper. There are almost no Popperians left in philosophy, his ideas are way too removed from scientific practice to be of any actual value, but every physicist I've ever talked to about this thinks he's great. (Despite doing literally the opposite of what Popper claims they should do.) Not that your point about certainty is wrong, mind you.

I'm a ~~physicist~~ (masters student physics) who doesn't like popper. I thought it was wierd how great people thought falsification was in the philosophy of science for scientists class. It's ugly and sterile and clearcly not how people actually do science.

# ? Sep 8, 2015 19:27

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

The Belgian posted:

I'm a ~~physicist~~ (masters student physics) who doesn't like popper. I thought it was wierd how great people thought falsification was in the philosophy of science for scientists class. It's ugly and sterile and clearcly not how people actually do science.

That's because you're confusing a descriptive with a prescriptive(or it was taught as such, which would be...bad). Popper outlined a preferable ideal for scientific logic, and in so doing distinguished Marx, Freud and Tarot readings from scientific practice. It wasn't meant to describe historic practices, it was meant to improve them- and did so. Popper is very explicit, in several places, about the fact that actual scientific practice won't be so ideal. One difficulty with philsci generally is that it mostly starts with Popper, so folks don't tend to see how lousy the reasoning was among the raw positivists that were his early contemporaries. Most of the subsequent philosophers, and scientific practices, incorporate or assume Popperian elements(or at least something less than raw positivism) in order to make things work.

To the extent that people don't actually do science in the way Popper described, that's fine- the idea is to get as close to the hypothetico-deductive approach as is possible. Problems arise when the importance of even trying to falsify theories or clearly state prior/basic claims is forgotten.

edit: I should add the caveat here that according to what sources I can find, Popper himself was something of a huge jackass, especially early on. Not liking the guy, or his writing style, is fine. His contributions, though, are massive and fundamental.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 19:45 on Sep 8, 2015

# ? Sep 8, 2015 19:36

Futuresight: Oct 11, 2012; IT'S ALL TURNED TO SHIT!

Discendo Vox posted:

I'm having trouble telling- Rotoru is definitely incorrect to say that physics (or, by extension, any science), is "certain", though. Popperian falsificationism is all about the impossibility of empirical certainty.

Science is certain though. I am certain, to the best of my knowledge at the present time, that energy cannot be created or destroyed. Tomorrow I might be certain of the opposite if new evidence comes to my attention, but for now I am certain that it is the best explanation I am aware of for the evidence I am aware of.

What I wonder is can someone be a philosopher or social scientist without having a degree? Can you get published without one? Is it wrapped up like science where it's all about your credentials or could someone do something sufficiently interesting to get published?

Sometimes I feel like graduate education exists purely as a feeder program for the journals.

# ? Sep 8, 2015 19:41

Juffo-Wup: Jan 13, 2005; Pillbug

botany posted:

Am I misreading that post or are both of you? I though Rotoru said specifically that physics is falsifiable and philosophy isn't, which is the opposite of what Jack and you seem to be reading.

Well, he wrote "Where the physicist can show beyond any doubt that something is incorrect a philosopher can not show with any certainty that he won't be convinced that he is wrong."

So the physicist can show with certainty (read: 'beyond any doubt') that a given proposition is false, which is the same as showing that its negation is true. So the physicist can give us certain knowledge.

The philosopher 'cannot show ... that he won't [someday] be convinced that he is wrong.' Meaning he can't show that he will always be convinced that he is right. Meaning (I think) that the philosopher cannot achieve certainty.

Or at least that's what I came up with after slogging through that mess of nested negations.

Anyway, my area of research (philosophy of cognitive science) also intersects a lot with the philosophy of science more generally, and I actually think Popper was wrong about a lot of stuff. So, while I don't think that falsifiability is the ultimate mark of excellent science, it is even more nonsensical to claim (as Rotoru seems to have, if I've gotten the analysis right) that falsifiability is the mark of a stagnating research program.

# ? Sep 8, 2015 19:41

Strudel Man: May 19, 2003; ROME DID NOT HAVE ROBOTS, FUCKWIT

Juffo-Wup posted:

So the physicist can show with certainty (read: 'beyond any doubt') that a given proposition is false, which is the same as showing that its negation is true. So the physicist can give us certain knowledge.

I have an ordinary quarter that will always come up 'heads' when flipped.

# ? Sep 8, 2015 19:43

Juffo-Wup: Jan 13, 2005; Pillbug

Strudel Man posted:

I have an ordinary quarter that will always come up 'heads' when flipped.

Like most philosophers, I am slow-witted and humorless, so you'll have to say more.

# ? Sep 8, 2015 19:46

Strudel Man: May 19, 2003; ROME DID NOT HAVE ROBOTS, FUCKWIT

Juffo-Wup posted:

Like most philosophers, I am slow-witted and humorless, so you'll have to say more.

It's fairly straightforward to show that my claim is false.

# ? Sep 8, 2015 19:48

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Higsian posted:

Science is certain though. I am certain, to the best of my knowledge at the present time, that energy cannot be created or destroyed. Tomorrow I might be certain of the opposite if new evidence comes to my attention, but for now I am certain that it is the best explanation I am aware of for the evidence I am aware of.

What I wonder is can someone be a philosopher or social scientist without having a degree? Can you get published without one? Is it wrapped up like science where it's all about your credentials or could someone do something sufficiently interesting to get published?

Sometimes I feel like graduate education exists purely as a feeder program for the journals.

Right, so that definition of "certainty" is sufficiently empirically contingent that it's not genuinely certain. It's reliant on a set of empirical and theoretical bases which can themselves be presumably falsified. It's firm enough to carry the structure of subsequent claims, at least for the time being, (to abuse LoSD), but it's not genuinely certain. Nothing is certain under a scientific model.

You can get published without having a degree (blind peer review is explicitly designed to permit this sort of thing, whatever its other defects), but it's rare to be educated enough and, importantly, have access to the sources to make your argument sound, without having a degree or being an academic with library/journal access.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 19:55 on Sep 8, 2015

# ? Sep 8, 2015 19:51

Juffo-Wup: Jan 13, 2005; Pillbug

Strudel Man posted:

It's fairly straightforward to show that my claim is false.

Okay, and that conclusion buys us what, exactly? Somehow I don't think you're ultimately interested in making a point about coins, but I can't for the life of me figure out where you think you're headed.

Edit:
Kripke got published without a degree, but he's kinda the exception that proves the rule I guess.

# ? Sep 8, 2015 19:52

Strudel Man: May 19, 2003; ROME DID NOT HAVE ROBOTS, FUCKWIT

Juffo-Wup posted:

Okay, and that conclusion buys us what, exactly? Somehow I don't think you're ultimately interested in making a point about coins, but I can't for the life of me figure out where you think you're headed.

I understood you to be implying that the 'certainty' of the physicist was illusory, based on the idea that good science or good knowledge was never truly proven, just not falsified yet. If you weren't, then that's my error.

# ? Sep 8, 2015 20:03

wiregrind: Jun 26, 2013

Discendo Vox posted:

Right, so that definition of "certainty" is sufficiently empirically contingent that it's not genuinely certain. It's reliant on a set of empirical and theoretical bases which can themselves be presumably falsified. It's firm enough to carry the structure of subsequent claims, at least for the time being, (to abuse LoSD), but it's not genuinely certain. Nothing is certain under a scientific model.

It's not about being 100% certain it's about getting as close as possible to that.
Something that can be falsified and is constantly tested brings more certainty than something that can't be tested at all.

# ? Sep 8, 2015 20:10

The Belgian: Oct 28, 2008

Higsian posted:

Science is certain though. I am certain, to the best of my knowledge at the present time, that energy cannot be created or destroyed. Tomorrow I might be certain of the opposite if new evidence comes to my attention, but for now I am certain that it is the best explanation I am aware of for the evidence I am aware of.

As Discendo Vox already said, that isn't certainty. Further, it's bad attitude for a scientist. You should doubt to progress. Are you just all the time certain of the most current theories? Do you then just perform experiments/research completely randomly until something somewhere against current explanations shows up? After all, being certain of everything there's no real 'point of attack' you can come up with.

Discendo Vox posted:

To the extent that people don't actually do science in the way Popper described, that's fine- the idea is to get as close to the hypothetico-deductive approach as is possible. Problems arise when the importance of even trying to falsify theories or clearly state prior/basic claims is forgotten.

I think striving to get as close to that approach as possible would be detrimental. Not that I'm saying we shouldn't even try to falsify, only that some people seem to overrate the importance of falsifaction as holy first priority. I think that for example Feyerabend in Against Method also has some valuable ideas although he goes waay too far in places.

EDIT: I should also add that I haven't read The Logic of Scientific Discovery, only know of it via secondary/tertiary/.. stuff and may be completely misunderstanding what Popper actually said.

The Belgian fucked around with this message at 20:15 on Sep 8, 2015

# ? Sep 8, 2015 20:11

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

The Belgian posted:

I think striving to get as close to that approach as possible would be detrimental. Not that I'm saying we shouldn't even try to falsify, only that some people seem to overrate the importance of falsifaction as holy first priority. I think that for example Feyerabend in Against Method also has some valuable ideas although he goes waay too far in places.

EDIT: I should also add that I haven't read The Logic of Scientific Discovery, only know of it via secondary/tertiary/.. stuff and may be completely misunderstanding what Popper actually said.

I'm in full agreement with you on all of this- in particular, falsification-resistant qualitative research is frequently necessary for the development of meaningful subsequent hypothesis testing. The pursuit of falsificationism has to be measured against the feasability and potential benefits of research- something at the core of the "hard" v "soft" science dispute. I'm thankfully not rereading Feyerabend for comps, though I may have to cite him anyways!

You should give LoSD a shot sometime- the main text is just 280 pp, and it's surprisingly accessible. The original edition is basically a barely restrained, extended ragepost against people in his immediate social circle using fascism, marxism, etc as examples of scientifically "proven" social systems, and has some great language about the problems of a scientific enterprise that expands beyond its methods.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 07:25 on Sep 9, 2015

# ? Sep 8, 2015 20:25

Mornacale: Dec 19, 2007; n=y where
y=hope and n=folly,
prospects=lies, win=lose,

self=Pirates

Strudel Man posted:

It's fairly straightforward to show that my claim is false.

Ironically, the simplest way to do this is by using logic, which is a field of philosophy.

# ? Sep 8, 2015 20:33

Pinch Me Im Meming: Jun 26, 2005

Mornacale posted:

Ironically, the simplest way to do this is by using logic, which is a field of philosophy.

[citation needed]

# ? Sep 8, 2015 20:38

wiregrind: Jun 26, 2013

The Belgian posted:

As Discendo Vox already said, that isn't certainty. Further, it's bad attitude for a scientist. You should doubt to progress. Are you just all the time certain of the most current theories? Do you then just perform experiments/research completely randomly until something somewhere against current explanations shows up? After all, being certain of everything there's no real 'point of attack' you can come up with.

I think striving to get as close to that approach as possible would be detrimental. Not that I'm saying we shouldn't even try to falsify, only that some people seem to overrate the importance of falsifaction as holy first priority.

You missed the part of his post where he says "For now this is the most certain way that we are aware of" and "Tomorrow this could change" this is because principles are constantly tested.
The constant testing and the possibility that there could be a true or false result is what gives certainty.
When people talk about things that "can't be proven false" what is actually being said is that there's no method or process to test wether it's true or false. There's a difference between something tested over the decades which is never proven false, and something that can't be tested and is just assumed to be true. I hope you understand.

# ? Sep 8, 2015 20:38

Futuresight: Oct 11, 2012; IT'S ALL TURNED TO SHIT!

The Belgian posted:

As Discendo Vox already said, that isn't certainty. Further, it's bad attitude for a scientist. You should doubt to progress. Are you just all the time certain of the most current theories? Do you then just perform experiments/research completely randomly until something somewhere against current explanations shows up? After all, being certain of everything there's no real 'point of attack' you can come up with.

I'm not talking absolute certainty. But you have to achieve a decent level of certainty or you have nothing to build from. Some things have to be certain. You can still attack things you are certain of, but then you have to have other things you need to be certain of as controls.

I'm thinking we don't fundamentally disagree on anything here, it just seems like a different view on what degree of certainty is "certainty".

# ? Sep 8, 2015 20:41

Juffo-Wup: Jan 13, 2005; Pillbug

Strudel Man posted:

I understood you to be implying that the 'certainty' of the physicist was illusory, based on the idea that good science or good knowledge was never truly proven, just not falsified yet. If you weren't, then that's my error.

No, sorry if I wasn't clear. For the purposes of this discussion I've tried to be agnostic as to the success of the physical sciences, but personally I tend to be very enthusiastic about them.

# ? Sep 8, 2015 20:54

Strudel Man: May 19, 2003; ROME DID NOT HAVE ROBOTS, FUCKWIT

Juffo-Wup posted:

No, sorry if I wasn't clear. For the purposes of this discussion I've tried to be agnostic as to the success of the physical sciences, but personally I tend to be very enthusiastic about them.

Mm. My apologies, then.

# ? Sep 8, 2015 20:58

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

The source of the confusion was that Rotoru presented physics and philosophy as opposed to each other, with the former being "certain" and the other being "uncertain". More generally, "certainty" is not a term I would recommend seeing in use, because it lends itself to binary interpretation.

# ? Sep 8, 2015 21:18

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 4, 2024 22:10

sugar free jazz: Mar 5, 2008

Rotoru's post was a joke, reading it as anything else is assuming he's hugely fuckin retarded

# ? Sep 8, 2015 21:34

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Progress in the humanities

«‹›4 »