Reality is Inaccessible

[Terrapin Station]

'Do you really believe that the formula for water, H2O, is subject to revision?'

According to basic epistemology, yes - but that's because the corpus of epistemology is biased against science by an over-emphasis on subjectivism to the exclusion of objectivism. It's clearly unsatisfactory that science is not considered truth, proof or reality - and so I took issue with your explanation of empiricism. Even while you explained the basics accurately, I still disagree, as confirmation by an independent observer is a form of proof inherent to empiricism.

So if we discover something that would be unimaginable now that suggests to us that we had atomic theory completely wrong and subsequently water turned out to not be H2O but some completely different sort of formulation, we'd not be able to change our understanding of the world per what we discover?

[Vitruvius]

'Do you really believe that the formula for water, H2O, is subject to revision?'

According to basic epistemology, yes - but that's because the corpus of epistemology is biased against science by an over-emphasis on subjectivism to the exclusion of objectivism. It's clearly unsatisfactory that science is not considered truth, proof or reality - and so I took issue with your explanation of empiricism. Even while you explained the basics accurately, I still disagree, as confirmation by an independent observer is a form of proof inherent to empiricism.

So if we discover something that would be unimaginable now that suggests to us that we had atomic theory completely wrong and subsequently water turned out to not be H2O but some completely different sort of formulation, we'd not be able to change our understanding of the world per what we discover?

Rather than use terms like right and wrong, suppose we rank hypotheses in terms of their explanatory potential. It might be possible in future that atomic theory is subsumed within a theory of everything, for instance, but that TOE would have to:

a) explain more than atomic theory does, and
b) explain perceptions currently explained by atomic theory.

Rather like, for example, a geocentric model of planetary motion at least explains there are planets, and they are in motion; it has some explanatory power, while a heliocentric model encompasses those observations - and explains more; such that we could think of hypotheses as one 'more true' than another. That so, the question is faulty. It is not that our prior state of knowledge is simply falsified, but rather, improved upon. The objective reality we seek to explain is commensurate throughout; such that there is no paradigm shift. A pre-Copernican astronomer would be able to recognise a modern model of the solar system, as an explanation of something he sought to explain - and that something is an objective reality. Consequently, I reject the proposition as skeptical doubt in disguise. Atomic theory cannot be completely wrong. It has significant, and demonstrated explanatory potential. Could another theory explain more? Yes, but it will have to encompass atomic theory!

[Terrapin Station]

Rather than use terms like right and wrong, suppose we rank hypotheses in terms of their explanatory potential.

Because that's what you say when you don't actually believe that you can observe externals as they are.

[Vitruvius]

Rather than use terms like right and wrong, suppose we rank hypotheses in terms of their explanatory potential.

Because that's what you say when you don't actually believe that you can observe externals as they are.

I don't accept that. It's entirely compatible to recognise that we perceive reality, and that what we perceive exists independently- and also observe that some theories have greater explanatory potential than others. Newtonian mechanics and relativity, for example - the latter explains far more, more accurately and comprehensively, but for practical purposes NASA uses Newton. Why? Because it's not false - exactly, it's just limited.

Of course, these speculations belong to a philosophy that never occurred because science was fighting off the assault of the religio-subjectivists, and I'm not trying to re-construct a vigorous epistemology and political philosophy of science, that ideally, might otherwise have occurred. I'm making this argument to illustrate a point, that removes an obstacle to addressing climate change. My intention is that it's the least disruptive approach; such that agreeing internationally that science is true as a basis to develop magma energy, is a means of protecting the ideologically eccentric construction of society from some supposed unreasonable adherence to strict rationality; focusing the unrealised functional truth value of a scientific understanding of reality instead upon what is existentially necessary, and accounting for externalities by internalising them with magma energy - rather than internalising them to the real economy, and so similarly, correcting without falsifying.

[Terrapin Station]

I don't accept that. It's entirely compatible to recognise that we perceive reality, and that what we perceive exists independently- and also observe that some theories have greater explanatory potential than others.

If you can observe things as they are, there's no reason to shy away from realizing that you got something wrong, should the occasion arise.

[RCSaunders]

It's not that it's "subject to revision"--that seems to have a connotation that it might be likely to revise it at some point, but rather that it's open to revision. That's a core tenet of the sciences, going at least back to Francis Bacon ...

There is no God of science dictating how science must be done, no authority that must be consulted to ensure one has the right view of science.There are no, "core tenets," no, "settled doctrines," no, "orthodoxies," of science. Anything that is discovered by any objective means based on actual physical evidence that can be observed, examined, and demonstrated is science.

Francis Bacon's only positive contribution was his view that actual experience was a basis of science, but his interpretation of that as induction was a disastrous mistake that has forever after infected both science and philosophy. It provided Hume an excuse for was absurd explanation of, "cause and effect," which he handily refuted, because it was based on the false notion that anything could be established on the basis of how often some phenomena were observed together.

After that every wrong notion of what science is, from statistical analysis to consensus was allowed, and the whole foundation of science was corrupted.

... where important work was done to distinguish the sciences from religious claims and the like. If a claim is not open to revision, then it's not a scientific claim.

Again, this doesn't say that it's at all likely that particular claims will be revised. The whole point, though, is that, should recalcitrant data become apparent, should there be something that causes a major paradigm shift, then ANY claim is potential fodder for revision to accommodate the new empirical data, otherwise we're not doing science and we've made it into something like a religion. ("Water can't be something other than H2O, regardless of this new empirical data, because it's an eternal truth that no matter what, water is H2O"--that's not what the idea of science is; that's rather making it something like a religion.)

Well, if you are going to call the fact that the discovery of the structure of chemical compounds is some kind of, "dogma," just because it is certain, then you are. It certainly is not going to help one understand what science is, however.

[RCSaunders]

"The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education." --Albert Einstein

Actually, this is a Mark Twain quote...

"I've never let school interfere with my education."

Yes, they are similar, but Einstein definitely said what I quoted. Einstein had great contempt for formal education.

So did Twain, and H.L. Mencken, and so do I.

[RCSaunders]

Do you really believe that the formula for water, H2O, is subject to revision, or that geostationary satellites will suddenly be falling to earth, when the principle has been, "falsified?"

Things are the way they are for reasons we are incapable of understanding. They are too complex for us to understand in an intellectual way [each event being brought to life by an infinite number of events preceding] and too simple for us to realize in a non-intellectual way [lack of access].

The explanation of for the chemical composition of water will certainly change as more sophisticated understandings become known in the future and it is not to deny that satellites orbit around the planet, only to question their modus.

Wow! "Things are the way they are for reasons we are incapable of understanding. They are too complex for us to understand in an intellectual way ..." but you are certain, "the chemical composition of water will certainly change as more sophisticated understandings become known in the future." But if we are incapable of understanding how can there be, "more sophisticated understanding," in the future?

That is self-contradictory nonsense.

[Vitruvius]

I don't accept that. It's entirely compatible to recognise that we perceive reality, and that what we perceive exists independently- and also observe that some theories have greater explanatory potential than others.

If you can observe things as they are, there's no reason to shy away from realizing that you got something wrong, should the occasion arise.

If you think I've got something wrong, please - spit it out. There's no way I'd shy away from pointing out the difference between 'observe things as they are' - a clearly impossible standard to set, and 'what we perceive, exists.'

i.e. You see a table because there is a table. You don't see the bubble-gum stuck underneath. Your perception is accurate to reality - it is not comprehensive of reality. Demanding that perception need be comprehensive - else entirely unreliable, is another false flag; like the pursuit of certainty at unreasonable cost. Subjectivist philosophy is entirely constructed from such subtle conceits.

[Terrapin Station]

I don't accept that. It's entirely compatible to recognise that we perceive reality, and that what we perceive exists independently- and also observe that some theories have greater explanatory potential than others.

If you can observe things as they are, there's no reason to shy away from realizing that you got something wrong, should the occasion arise.

If you think I've got something wrong, please - spit it out. There's no way I'd shy away from pointing out the difference between 'observe things as they are' - a clearly impossible standard to set, and 'what we perceive, exists.'

i.e. You see a table because there is a table. You don't see the bubble-gum stuck underneath. Your perception is accurate to reality - it is not comprehensive of reality. Demanding that perception need be comprehensive - else entirely unreliable, is another false flag; like the pursuit of certainty at unreasonable cost. Subjectivist philosophy is entirely constructed from such subtle conceits.

I'm talking about what I said above. That we could discover something that would be unimaginable now that suggests to us that we had atomic theory completely wrong. Just like we discovered that we had combustion theory wrong (a la phlogiston), for example, although I'm talking about something that would rather be a paradigm shift rather than just a correction about how something works.

[Terrapin Station]

Well, if you are going to call the fact that the discovery of the structure of chemical compounds is some kind of, "dogma," just because it is certain, then you are. It certainly is not going to help one understand what science is, however.

What would make it dogma is that no matter what we discover, we can't modify claims about the structure of chemical compounds.

[RCSaunders]

Well, if you are going to call the fact that the discovery of the structure of chemical compounds is some kind of, "dogma," just because it is certain, then you are. It certainly is not going to help one understand what science is, however.

What would make it dogma is that no matter what we discover, we can't modify claims about the structure of chemical compounds.

The description of water is not a declaration, but a description. It's not a doctrine, it's a simple definition. When Lavoisier discovered there was a gas that was the basis of combustion, it was called oxygen. The gas itself was described in terms of its properties, e.g. colorless, odorless, with a specific weight, etc. After that, saying oxygen supported combustion was not a dogmatic declaration, it was a simple statement of fact. It did not mean there could not be any other kind of gas or other kind of combustion, only that the gas that was discovered to support combustion had the properties it had and the gas with those properties was named oxygen. It is not possible for oxygen to have any properties which would contradict or cancel those by which it is identified. If another gas is discovered with different properties, it is a different gas. It's not, "dogma," its definition.

The same goes for water. The discovery that pure hydrogen burned in pure oxygen resulted in water vapor was not a dogma. Describing water as H2O only identifies the product of hydrogen burned in pure oxygen. Electrolysis proved that all water, when separated, produced hydrogen and oxygen in exact proportions of two to one.

If combustion occurred that did not result in water, the elements involved would have to be different elements, not because of some, "dogma," but because the elements that when burned that resulted in water are named hydrogen and oxygen. Hydrogen, as a matter of fact, will burn in chlorine. The resultant of burning hydrogen in chlorine is HCL, which when dissolved in water is hydrochloric acid.

Hydrogen and oxygen do form at least one other compound other than water, hydrogen peroxide, H2O2. It is very difficult to form, however, and is easily identified. (It is, as a liquid, slightly blue.) If it had different properties it would just be a different compound, not a violation of any presumed dogma or orthodoxy.

Every chemical element is what it is because it has the properties it has. It does not have those properties because some dogma says it must, it has those properties because if it did not, it would not be that element.

[Terrapin Station]

The description of water is not a declaration, but a description. It's not a doctrine, it's a simple definition. When Lavoisier discovered there was a gas that was the basis of combustion, it was called oxygen. The gas itself was described in terms of its properties, e.g. colorless, odorless, with a specific weight, etc. After that, saying oxygen supported combustion was not a dogmatic declaration, it was a simple statement of fact. It did not mean there could not be any other kind of gas or other kind of combustion, only that the gas that was discovered to support combustion had the properties it had and the gas with those properties was named oxygen. It is not possible for oxygen to have any properties which would contradict or cancel those by which it is identified. If another gas is discovered with different properties, it is a different gas. It's not, "dogma," its definition.

The definitions are in response to what we discover about the world--they're shaped by what we discover. But it's not about the terms. We could discover that the supposed properties of oxygen have nothing to do with atoms normally having 8 protons, neutrons and electrons, and that atoms normally having 8 protons, neutrons and electrons actually have very different properties than we thought they had, for example. Whether we change that "oxygen" is going to refer to 8-8-8 atomic structure or that it's going to refer to the properties in question doesn't matter. The claims are open to revision. If they weren't, we'd no longer be doing science.

If, in the face of such discoveries, you were to say, "No, it's impossible for 8-8-8 atomic structures to have other properties than x, y, z," so that you're ignoring the recalcitrant empirical evidence and dogmatically asserting that the claim/theory/etc. must be correct ("because we defined it that way" or whatever the reasons you'd give) despite what's apparent, then you're no longer doing science.

[RCSaunders]

The description of water is not a declaration, but a description. It's not a doctrine, it's a simple definition. When Lavoisier discovered there was a gas that was the basis of combustion, it was called oxygen. The gas itself was described in terms of its properties, e.g. colorless, odorless, with a specific weight, etc. After that, saying oxygen supported combustion was not a dogmatic declaration, it was a simple statement of fact. It did not mean there could not be any other kind of gas or other kind of combustion, only that the gas that was discovered to support combustion had the properties it had and the gas with those properties was named oxygen. It is not possible for oxygen to have any properties which would contradict or cancel those by which it is identified. If another gas is discovered with different properties, it is a different gas. It's not, "dogma," its definition.

The definitions are in response to what we discover about the world--they're shaped by what we discover. But it's not about the terms. We could discover that the supposed properties of oxygen have nothing to do with atoms normally having 8 protons, neutrons and electrons, and that atoms normally having 8 protons, ....

I have no idea what you are talking about. No science that I know of does anything like that. Protons, neutrons, and electrons are descriptions or ways of picturing the properties of atoms. The pictures are not science, the properties they are used to describe are simply facts. The pictures change all the time, because new properties are discovered for the same elements, but if any of the original identifying attributes were different, they would just be different elements.

[simplicity]

Wow! "Things are the way they are for reasons we are incapable of understanding. They are too complex for us to understand in an intellectual way ..." but you are certain, "the chemical composition of water will certainly change as more sophisticated understandings become known in the future." But if we are incapable of understanding how can there be, "more sophisticated understanding," in the future?

I am not saying that the understanding is correct, it's just builds on previous incorrect understanding. It wasn't so long ago that physicians were drilling holes in patient's skulls to allow the evil spirits to escape.

Relatively speaking, things have improved [medically], but there are still a great deal of practices/procedures on-going that folks will look back at with disbelief.

Once you have a system in place, you build on it until the entire system becomes obsolete. The history of nearly everything is this way.