Philosophy Now Forum

uwot wrote: ↑Thu Apr 29, 2021 11:42 am

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Apr 28, 2021 9:18 pmTHe point is the the "EVIDENCE" is the material reality of the universe.

I happen to think that is untrue. I think some version of Kant's distinction between cause (noumenon) and phenomenon is probably correct.

LOL
Then you have no understanding of either science nor the universe.
And your reference to Kant is not relavant
And as I suspected there is very little point persuing your posts.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Apr 29, 2021 1:38 pmAnd as I suspected there is very little point persuing your posts.

Maybe not, but before you go, can you explain what you mean by

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Apr 28, 2021 9:18 pmTHe point is the the "EVIDENCE" is the material reality of the universe.

uwot wrote: ↑Thu Apr 29, 2021 2:22 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Apr 29, 2021 1:38 pmAnd as I suspected there is very little point persuing your posts.

Maybe not, but before you go, can you explain what you mean by

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Apr 28, 2021 9:18 pmTHe point is the the "EVIDENCE" is the material reality of the universe.

It's a no brainer. Why do you object to it, and what do you think it is?

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Apr 29, 2021 3:57 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Apr 28, 2021 9:18 pmTHe point is the the "EVIDENCE" is the material reality of the universe.

It's a no brainer. Why do you object to it, and what do you think it is?

It depends what you mean by 'material'. Do you mean it in the philosophical sense of 'substance', some stuff with mechanical properties? I personally think Schrödinger was about right when he said "What we observe as material bodies and forces are nothing but shapes and variations in the structure of space." I suspect the same is true of consciousness.

uwot wrote: ↑Thu Apr 29, 2021 4:18 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Apr 29, 2021 3:57 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Apr 28, 2021 9:18 pmTHe point is the the "EVIDENCE" is the material reality of the universe.

It's a no brainer. Why do you object to it, and what do you think it is?

It depends what you mean by 'material'. Do you mean it in the philosophical sense of 'substance', some stuff with mechanical properties? I personally think Schrödinger was about right when he said "What we observe as material bodies and forces are nothing but shapes and variations in the structure of space." I suspect the same is true of consciousness.

"IT" - what ever "it" is does not depend on the meaning of material, as it is all inclusive, given the context.
Your reference to Schrödinger is also not relevant.
If you can just take your head out of your arse for the moment and return to the thread.
I MEAN that exaclty the same evidence was used by Copurnicus that was available to all geocentric theorists, to postulate the heliocentric theory of cosmology. The evidence and observations did not change. The paradigm did.
Consciousness is just a red herring.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Apr 29, 2021 6:03 pmIf you can just take your head out of your arse for the moment and return to the thread.

It's my thread, I'll put my head where I wish.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Apr 29, 2021 6:03 pmI MEAN that exaclty the same evidence was used by Copurnicus that was available to all geocentric theorists, to postulate the heliocentric theory of cosmology. The evidence and observations did not change. The paradigm did.

Indeed. In many cases a new paradigm completely demolishes an old one, because the model on which it is based is discovered to be demonstrably false. That is not always the case, and there are many instances where several competing paradigms account for the same data equally well. It is also worth noting whatMax Planck said: “a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”

uwot wrote: ↑Thu Apr 29, 2021 6:35 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Apr 29, 2021 6:03 pmIf you can just take your head out of your arse for the moment and return to the thread.

It's my thread, I'll put my head where I wish.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Apr 29, 2021 6:03 pmI MEAN that exaclty the same evidence was used by Copurnicus that was available to all geocentric theorists, to postulate the heliocentric theory of cosmology. The evidence and observations did not change. The paradigm did.

Indeed. In many cases a new paradigm completely demolishes an old one,

as I said above.

because the model on which it is based is discovered to be demonstrably false.

NOT just the "MYTH" as you suggested.

That is not always the case, and there are many instances where several competing paradigms account for the same data equally well.

Only at the periphery of science, as I already said.
But as Wittgenstein asked, if the world was static what would the stars look like?
It took a long while for the heliocentric hypothesis to be accepted. THe geometric model was not "demonstrably false" in fact the Copernican system was far more clumsy than the Ptolemaic, and actually added several more epicycles.
It was not until Kepler challlenged Aristotles "perfect circles" to propose elliptical orbits that the geocentric model was eventually abandoned. It was all about saving the appearances and parsimony of ideas.
I live to know what on earth you mean my the "myth", as distinct from paradigms.

It is also worth noting whatMax Planck said: “a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”

Now you are contradicting yourself. Does HE mention "myths"?

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:49 pmNOT just the "MYTH" as you suggested.

One more time:

uwot wrote: ↑Thu Apr 29, 2021 11:42 amI get that you don't like the word 'myth' to describe something that cannot be seen directly; how about 'ontological hypothesis commensurate with specific phenomena under investigation'?

uwot wrote: ↑Thu Apr 29, 2021 10:30 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:49 pmNOT just the "MYTH" as you suggested.

One more time:

uwot wrote: ↑Thu Apr 29, 2021 11:42 amI get that you don't like the word 'myth' to describe something that cannot be seen directly; how about 'ontological hypothesis commensurate with specific phenomena under investigation'?

It's called a scientific paradigm, which is what we are talking about.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Fri Apr 30, 2021 12:34 pmIt's called a scientific paradigm, which is what we are talking about.

Okie-dokie. I'll grab some popcorn and sit back while you explain what a scientific paradigm is.

uwot wrote: ↑Fri Apr 30, 2021 6:15 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Fri Apr 30, 2021 12:34 pmIt's called a scientific paradigm, which is what we are talking about.

Okie-dokie. I'll grab some popcorn and sit back while you explain what a scientific paradigm is.

While we're waiting for Sculptor to realise that a paradigm is not simply an hypothesis about the physical underpinning of a mathematical model, yer might enjoy this chat by Noam Chomsky who describes the state of science neatly and quite succinctly. Modern physics is based on concepts like force, energy, mass, field, gravity, spacetime; all of which are extrapolations from watching the behaviour 'physical' objects. 'Physical' itself is widely taken to mean something like 'material' or 'substantial', but for the purposes of physics just means something that can be observed. Modern physics wouldn't change at all if any of the terms were replaced with 'magic'. Anyway, here's Chomsky: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVFBABFdLXE

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sun Apr 25, 2021 5:22 pm

A_Seagull wrote: ↑Mon Apr 22, 2019 11:57 pm Kuhn's work on paradigms applies not only to the philosophy of science but to the philosophy of philosophy as well.

Except that philosophy can have co-existing competing paradigms since it does not primarily relate the the physical world.

Yes certainly philosophy can have many co-existing paradigms. But ultimately they have to have some correlation with the physical world lest they are pure fantasy.

A_Seagull wrote: ↑Tue May 18, 2021 11:10 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sun Apr 25, 2021 5:22 pm

A_Seagull wrote: ↑Mon Apr 22, 2019 11:57 pm Kuhn's work on paradigms applies not only to the philosophy of science but to the philosophy of philosophy as well.

Except that philosophy can have co-existing competing paradigms since it does not primarily relate the the physical world.

Yes certainly philosophy can have many co-existing paradigms. But ultimately they have to have some correlation with the physical world lest they are pure fantasy.

Yes but I was making a distinction between philosphy which can have co-existing paradigms (even when it relates to the physical world), and science which always has to seek to reconcile conflicts of this kind.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed May 19, 2021 8:44 am

A_Seagull wrote: ↑Tue May 18, 2021 11:10 pmYes certainly philosophy can have many co-existing paradigms. But ultimately they have to have some correlation with the physical world lest they are pure fantasy.

Yes but I was making a distinction between philosphy which can have co-existing paradigms (even when it relates to the physical world), and science which always has to seek to reconcile conflicts of this kind.

You two should read the article. Philosophy and science are done by people and people have all sorts of bonkers ideas. For a successful philosophy those ideas have to work in some intellectual or emotional way. Scientific ideas have to work in some practical way. In either case it makes fuck all difference whether the ideas bear any resemblance to reality.

uwot wrote: ↑Wed May 19, 2021 9:36 am

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed May 19, 2021 8:44 am

A_Seagull wrote: ↑Tue May 18, 2021 11:10 pmYes certainly philosophy can have many co-existing paradigms. But ultimately they have to have some correlation with the physical world lest they are pure fantasy.

Yes but I was making a distinction between philosphy which can have co-existing paradigms (even when it relates to the physical world), and science which always has to seek to reconcile conflicts of this kind.

You two should read the article.

Or you could just run along and come back when you know what you are talking about.
I won't hold my breath.