Philosophy Now Forum

Are physicists good at philosophy? It seems to me that they confuse ontology ( what is ) with what we know ( epistemology ).
For example, the common sense solution to Heisenberg's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle is that just because it is impossible to know the position and the momentum of a particle simultaneously does not mean that they do not have a location and speed. My degree is not in physics, so I am probably missing something. But to me they do not understand the difference between truth and validity. They might have all the facts but their argument is not valid. Here is an argument that is true but invalid. 1. Obama was president. 2. Nixon was president. 3. Therefore my dog's name is Varnog. Here is an argument that is valid but not true. 1. All Martians eat snakes. 2. Bob is a Martian. 3. Therefore, Bob eats snakes.
Hawking was a GREAT physicist. But a really bad philosopher. He was a self-proclaimed logical positivist, a philosophy now known for only one thing it is self-refuting. The core of LP is the proposition that any proposition that is not empirical or analytical is meaningless. Is the core of LP empirical? NO! Is it analytical? NO! Therefore by LP's own core doctrine LP is meaningless!

raw_thought wrote: ↑Wed Sep 16, 2020 12:27 am Are physicists good at philosophy? It seems to me that they confuse ontology ( what is ) with what we know ( epistemology ).
For example, the common sense solution to Heisenberg's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle is that just because it is impossible to know the position and the momentum of a particle simultaneously does not mean that they do not have a location and speed. My degree is not in physics, so I am probably missing something. But to me they do not understand the difference between truth and validity. They might have all the facts but their argument is not valid. Here is an argument that is true but invalid. 1. Obama was president. 2. Nixon was president. 3. Therefore my dog's name is Varnog. Here is an argument that is valid but not true. 1. All Martians eat snakes. 2. Bob is a Martian. 3. Therefore, Bob eats snakes.
Hawking was a GREAT physicist. But a really bad philosopher. He was a self-proclaimed logical positivist, a philosophy now known for only one thing it is self-refuting. The core of LP is the proposition that any proposition that is not empirical or analytical is meaningless. Is the core of LP empirical? NO! Is it analytical? NO! Therefore by LP's own core doctrine LP is meaningless!

I agree that your example is fair to the confusion of interpretations. But you say that the "core of LP (is not) empirical". Logic is as much inferred to us 'empirically' but this is not true, even if this may also be thought of by some calling themselves, 'logical posivists.' See my post I just responded to:

Beyond the Law of Noncontradiction

I responded to the confusion regarding the rationale of the 'positivists' by intention of the original people receiving this label. I give some examples that may help understand the distinction of the meanings.

As to quantum physics' interpretations, some interpret the expression of the scientific theories of the 'wierd' as implying nature is itself 'weird'. Others believe that you should not accept the 'weird' interpretation but rather sustain judgement about the literal reality even while accepting the utility of the methodology unless it is no longer weird.

For instance, the slit experiment that demonstrates an interference pattern that seems 'weird'. Some, like Heisenburg, postulated that when we 'observe' something, even passively (or 'in principle' regardless of whether this effect is about some active or passive interference), is literally demonstrated by experiments about the slit experiment. But is not the very interference pattern an 'observation' that can be thought of as being similarly flawed?

The "Copenhagen" interpretation suggests that the phenomena means that it is literally true that the phenomena of duality exists but instantly 'collapses' to one unique reality for merely looking. But the error can be that they falsely assume that light requires being only a particle or a wave but not both when we observe it. This confuses the issue for the very question that the pattern is itself 'observed'. Others question whether science is permitted to speak on interpretion at all. As such, some scientists resist a willingness to debate this and why they may feel that this is 'philosophy' that should be treated distinctly. However, this can be hypocritical because even those presuming they are NOT being 'philosophical' are still proposing some 'weirdness' as though it is 'in principle' non-resolvable. If they should expect that philosophy should not play a role, then they have no right to propose expressions that attempt to interpret nor explain possible causation.

Quantum observations MIGHT suggest that there are alternative realities; one which proceeds from cause to effect and another, at least on a subatomic level, that proceeds from effect to cause.

That might explain quantum physics.

If it does, it may upset many of the ways scientists explain the universe, time and other phenomenon.

raw_thought wrote: ↑Wed Sep 16, 2020 12:27 am Are physicists good at philosophy? It seems to me that they confuse ontology ( what is ) with what we know ( epistemology ).
For example, the common sense solution to Heisenberg's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle is that just because it is impossible to know the position and the momentum of a particle simultaneously does not mean that they do not have a location and speed. My degree is not in physics, so I am probably missing something. But to me they do not understand the difference between truth and validity. They might have all the facts but their argument is not valid. Here is an argument that is true but invalid. 1. Obama was president. 2. Nixon was president. 3. Therefore my dog's name is Varnog. Here is an argument that is valid but not true. 1. All Martians eat snakes. 2. Bob is a Martian. 3. Therefore, Bob eats snakes.
Hawking was a GREAT physicist. But a really bad philosopher. He was a self-proclaimed logical positivist, a philosophy now known for only one thing it is self-refuting. The core of LP is the proposition that any proposition that is not empirical or analytical is meaningless. Is the core of LP empirical? NO! Is it analytical? NO! Therefore by LP's own core doctrine LP is meaningless!

not sure of your origin point of this thread - but welcome your clarification.

Quantum Mechanics/Physics is not the whole picture, and why we have Einstien with is GR/SR.

those two cannot be forced to fit into one "unified theory" of reality..............after 70 yrs to date.

when/if they can in the future, great! and then we understand the universe.

not until then though. something is missing - something big, so we lack understanding.

it may be beyond our nature to understand. or maybe some genius will show up - like 100 yrs ago and unify all things.

raw_thought wrote: ↑Wed Sep 16, 2020 12:27 am Are physicists good at philosophy? It seems to me that they confuse ontology ( what is ) with what we know ( epistemology ).
For example, the common sense solution to Heisenberg's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle is that just because it is impossible to know the position and the momentum of a particle simultaneously does not mean that they do not have a location and speed. My degree is not in physics, so I am probably missing something. But to me they do not understand the difference between truth and validity. They might have all the facts but their argument is not valid. Here is an argument that is true but invalid. 1. Obama was president. 2. Nixon was president. 3. Therefore my dog's name is Varnog. Here is an argument that is valid but not true. 1. All Martians eat snakes. 2. Bob is a Martian. 3. Therefore, Bob eats snakes.
Hawking was a GREAT physicist. But a really bad philosopher. He was a self-proclaimed logical positivist, a philosophy now known for only one thing it is self-refuting. The core of LP is the proposition that any proposition that is not empirical or analytical is meaningless. Is the core of LP empirical? NO! Is it analytical? NO! Therefore by LP's own core doctrine LP is meaningless!

Quantum mechanics solves such subtle relationships that they must necessarily use the same fine processes / tools to "grasp" / measure them. E.g. the more accurate the position of the particle we want to know, the harder the photon on it we have to illuminate. However, the harder the photon shines, the harder the impulse we add to the particle and thus change its position / velocity ... The subsequent scattering of the photon carries information about the state of the "measured" particle so that it is affected by this state. It could be said that even particles "measure" the state (energy and velocity) of an electron. Such a mixture of wavy relations of the quantum world manifests itself macroscopically only in relatively stable resonances (such as by blowing into the flute ...)

gaffo wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 11:11 pm

raw_thought wrote: ↑Wed Sep 16, 2020 12:27 am Are physicists good at philosophy? It seems to me that they confuse ontology ( what is ) with what we know ( epistemology ).
For example, the common sense solution to Heisenberg's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle is that just because it is impossible to know the position and the momentum of a particle simultaneously does not mean that they do not have a location and speed. My degree is not in physics, so I am probably missing something. But to me they do not understand the difference between truth and validity. They might have all the facts but their argument is not valid. Here is an argument that is true but invalid. 1. Obama was president. 2. Nixon was president. 3. Therefore my dog's name is Varnog. Here is an argument that is valid but not true. 1. All Martians eat snakes. 2. Bob is a Martian. 3. Therefore, Bob eats snakes.
Hawking was a GREAT physicist. But a really bad philosopher. He was a self-proclaimed logical positivist, a philosophy now known for only one thing it is self-refuting. The core of LP is the proposition that any proposition that is not empirical or analytical is meaningless. Is the core of LP empirical? NO! Is it analytical? NO! Therefore by LP's own core doctrine LP is meaningless!

not sure of your origin point of this thread - but welcome your clarification.

Quantum Mechanics/Physics is not the whole picture, and why we have Einstien with is GR/SR.

those two cannot be forced to fit into one "unified theory" of reality..............after 70 yrs to date.

They maybe not be able to be 'forced' to fit into one, but they DO fit into One, naturally AND perfectly.

The very reason WHY they have not fitted previously, after 70 years to date, is because some 'try to' 'force' them together.

How they ACTUALLY DO FIT TOGETHER as One can be very easily explained and very easily understood.

gaffo wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 11:11 pm when/if they can in the future, great! and then we understand the universe.

Already been done.

gaffo wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 11:11 pm not until then though. something is missing - something big, so we lack understanding.

That 'something', which is missing, is Honesty.

You have to KNOW and understand who 'you' are before you KNOW and understand the Universe, Itself.

gaffo wrote: ↑Sun Oct 18, 2020 11:11 pm it may be beyond our nature to understand. or maybe some genius will show up - like 100 yrs ago and unify all things.

If only you KNEW the 'slip' you made here.

It might actually take 100 years, from when this is being written, before people can FULLY SEE, and thus REAL EYES, just how ALL things got and were ALREADY unified, back then.

By the way, it was NOT by some, so called, "genius" but rather by some one who just happened to be more honest than "others" were.

Cerveny wrote: ↑Sun Nov 22, 2020 10:00 am

raw_thought wrote: ↑Wed Sep 16, 2020 12:27 am ...

Quantum mechanics solves such subtle relationships that they must necessarily use the same fine processes / tools to "grasp" / measure them. E.g. the more accurate the position of the particle we want to know, the harder the photon on it we have to illuminate. However, the harder the photon shines, the harder the impulse we add to the particle and thus change its position / velocity ... The subsequent scattering of the photon carries information about the state of the "measured" particle so that it is affected by this state. It could be said that even particles "measure" the state (energy and velocity) of an electron. Such a mixture of wavy relations of the quantum world manifests itself macroscopically only in relatively stable resonances (such as by blowing into the flute ...)

It all strongly remind to me the reviews (measurements) of the books. The longer review the more information about the reader we get too. It is possible to say that the book reviews (measure) the readers. I study it on case of my most favorite book “War with the Newts”:) In addition, measuring subjekt (reader) is influenced by measured object (book)... <reader|review|book>

raw_thought wrote: ↑Wed Sep 16, 2020 12:27 amAre physicists good at philosophy? It seems to me that they confuse ontology ( what is ) with what we know ( epistemology ).

There's a lot of questions you can ask about a thing. The big three* are: Where is it from? What is it made of? How does it work? Physics is primarily about the last one and even that should be understood as two separate questions: What does it do? and Why does it do that? Of all those questions, the only one that can be answered with any certainty is What does it do? The reason you can be fairly certain of what something does is because you can watch it doing so. All the other questions you can answer pretty much as you please, provided your answer is consistent with what you see happening.

raw_thought wrote: ↑Wed Sep 16, 2020 12:27 amMy degree is not in physics, so I am probably missing something. But to me they do not understand the difference between truth and validity.

Well 'they' is a sweeping term but while not all physicists are rocket scientists, most will concede that if predictions aren't matched by observations, something is wrong with the theory - at least something about it is not true. That doesn't stop it being true enough for some purpose.

*Christianity answers these with: god the father, god the son and god the holy ghost - the anthropomorphism of creation, matter and energy. As such genesis, like most creation myths explains where the world came from, what it is made of and how it works - as in Why does it do that? There's very little detail on what the world actually does, which is why religion and science have nothing to do with each other.

uwot wrote: ↑Sun Nov 22, 2020 2:24 pm Well 'they' is a sweeping term but while not all physicists are rocket scientists, most will concede that if predictions aren't matched by observations, something is wrong with the theory - at least something about it is not true. That doesn't stop it being true enough for some purpose.

*Christianity answers these with: god the father, god the son and god the holy ghost - the anthropomorphism of creation, matter and energy. As such genesis, like most creation myths explains where the world came from, what it is made of and how it works - as in Why does it do that? There's very little detail on what the world actually does, which is why religion and science have nothing to do with each other.

I'm sure we can both agree that Christianity answers nothing. What I do like about it is the questions that it raises. One can do science and have an open mind to the concept, or one can do science and have a closed mind to the concept...I know which POV I'd prefer.

The start of Genesis is bloody brilliant. IF there is a God (there is), then I am certain this entity would insist within our reality that 'HIS' book kicks off with what 'HE' wanted it to state at the outset..

And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.

Total obvious bull right there, it is a ridiculous notion to consider such an entity would use words to do something. So at the outset an inquisitive mind should consider Y? ...indeed, Y such an entity would allow THE Earth common protocol language to have 'bible' as a homophone to buy_bull.
Does IT want us to just accept? Or question? ...the contents of the book.

Interesting wording "LET" there be light:- sounds like GOD is asking some entity to allow it.

From the outset this GOD entity wants us to conceive of something being 'switched' on - the light - boom!
We have electricity now and an electric light bulb - boom!

We have A.I. in development - we can now conceive of an entity KNOWING EVERYTHING - boom!

Asimovs 'The Last Question' does a pretty good job of getting our philosophical thoughts back to the BEGINNING.
https://templatetraining.princeton.edu/ ... asimov.pdf

Jesus, I am starting to sound like Basil Brush!

Cerveny wrote: ↑Sun Nov 22, 2020 10:46 am

Cerveny wrote: ↑Sun Nov 22, 2020 10:00 am

raw_thought wrote: ↑Wed Sep 16, 2020 12:27 am ...

Quantum mechanics solves such subtle relationships that they must necessarily use the same fine processes / tools to "grasp" / measure them. E.g. the more accurate the position of the particle we want to know, the harder the photon on it we have to illuminate. However, the harder the photon shines, the harder the impulse we add to the particle and thus change its position / velocity ... The subsequent scattering of the photon carries information about the state of the "measured" particle so that it is affected by this state. It could be said that even particles "measure" the state (energy and velocity) of an electron. Such a mixture of wavy relations of the quantum world manifests itself macroscopically only in relatively stable resonances (such as by blowing into the flute ...)

It all strongly remind to me the reviews (measurements) of the books. The longer review the more information about the reader we get too. It is possible to say that the book reviews (measure) the readers. I study it on case of my most favorite book “War with the Newts”:) In addition, measuring subjekt (reader) is influenced by measured object (book)... <reader|review|book>

In the deep processes of quantum mechanics, measurement (interaction) affects not only the object (uncertainty principle), but measurement also affects the subject. This is simply the reason for the instability, the ripples of the microworld ...

raw_thought wrote: ↑Wed Sep 16, 2020 12:27 am Are physicists good at philosophy? It seems to me that they confuse ontology ( what is ) with what we know ( epistemology ).

The confusion (if there is any) on the side of philosophers, not the physicists.

Physicists understand the implications of Kant's philosophy. Epistemology describes phenomena. Ontology describes noumena.
But we, humans, don't have access to noumena. So are we describing the unknowable then?

Trivially: The distinction between ontology and epistemology is still only a conceptual distinction.

All concepts and objects of perception are epistemic phenomena.

raw_thought wrote: ↑Wed Sep 16, 2020 12:27 am For example, the common sense solution to Heisenberg's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle is that just because it is impossible to know the position and the momentum of a particle simultaneously does not mean that they do not have a location and speed.

So... location and speed are not ontological matters, they are still epistemic matters pertaining to measurement (acquiring information) about an object.

The epistemic concept of "Location" (a.k.a position) is only meaningful with respect to some coordinate system which necessitates geometry, but location can only be measured at a point-in-time.
The epistemic concept of "Speed" is only meaningful with respect to "change in location" which necessitates change in time.

So you have yourself a paradox/contradiction (which is not as problematic as philosophers insist).

raw_thought wrote: ↑Wed Sep 16, 2020 12:27 am My degree is not in physics, so I am probably missing something. But to me they do not understand the difference between truth and validity. They might have all the facts but their argument is not valid.

Physicists are not in the business of constructing arguments.

Physicists are in the business of constructing formal models which make predictions that agree with empirical observations.

raw_thought wrote: ↑Wed Sep 16, 2020 12:27 am Here is an argument that is true but invalid. 1. Obama was president. 2. Nixon was president. 3. Therefore my dog's name is Varnog. Here is an argument that is valid but not true. 1. All Martians eat snakes. 2. Bob is a Martian. 3. Therefore, Bob eats snakes.

The trivial distinction between Philosophers and Physicists is that in Physics 1&2 are irrelevant if 3 correlates with observation.

Just because my argument is invalid, or that my premises are false - it doesn't mean my conclusion is not true.

You are committing the fallacy fallacy

raw_thought wrote: ↑Wed Sep 16, 2020 12:27 am Hawking was a GREAT physicist. But a really bad philosopher.

That assertion necessarily depends on some normative/ontological idea for the inherent properties of a "good philosophers".

My personal opinion: "good philosopher" is an oxymoron.

raw_thought wrote: ↑Wed Sep 16, 2020 12:27 am He was a self-proclaimed logical positivist, a philosophy now known for only one thing it is self-refuting.

It isn't self-refuting. Philosophers have simply chosen to (mis?)interpret self-affirmation as self-refutation.

One's modus ponens is another's modus tollens...

raw_thought wrote: ↑Wed Sep 16, 2020 12:27 am The core of LP is the proposition that any proposition that is not empirical or analytical is meaningless.

That's all dandy as a proposition, but it's undecidable....

Also, it really depends on whether you interpret the above sentence as being made outside the system e.g it's an expression in the meta-language.
Or whether you think it's a sentence being made inside the system e.g it's an expression in the object language.

raw_thought wrote: ↑Wed Sep 16, 2020 12:27 am Is the core of LP empirical? NO!

How have you decided that?

Much of late-20th and 21st century science is of the opinion that logic is empirical. Following in the footsteps of Quine.

raw_thought wrote: ↑Wed Sep 16, 2020 12:27 am Is it analytical? NO!

How have you decided that?

raw_thought wrote: ↑Wed Sep 16, 2020 12:27 am Therefore by LP's own core doctrine LP is meaningless!

The fact of the matter is that all non-empirical philosophical questions are undecidable: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_problem

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Dec 13, 2020 10:11 am

raw_thought wrote: ↑Wed Sep 16, 2020 12:27 am Are physicists good at philosophy? It seems to me that they confuse ontology ( what is ) with what we know ( epistemology ).

The confusion (if there is any) on the side of philosophers, not the physicists.

Physicists understand the implications of Kant's philosophy. Epistemology describes phenomena. Ontology describes noumena.
But we, humans, don't have access to noumena. So we are describing the unknowable? It begs a question: How do you describe something you don't know anything about?

Trivially: The distinction between ontology and epistemology is still only a conceptual distinction.

All concepts are epistemic phenomena.

raw_thought wrote: ↑Wed Sep 16, 2020 12:27 am For example, the common sense solution to Heisenberg's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle is that just because it is impossible to know the position and the momentum of a particle simultaneously does not mean that they do not have a location and speed.

So... location and speed are not ontological matters, they are still epistemic matters.

The epistemic concept of "Location" (a.k.a position) is only meaningful with respect to some coordinate system which necessitates geometry.
The epistemic concept of "Speed" is only meaningful with respect to "change in location" which necessitates calculus.

raw_thought wrote: ↑Wed Sep 16, 2020 12:27 am My degree is not in physics, so I am probably missing something. But to me they do not understand the difference between truth and validity. They might have all the facts but their argument is not valid.

Physicists are not in the business of constructing arguments.

Physicists are in the business of constructing formal expressions which make predictions that agree with measurement.

Constructing 'formal expressions', or stories, based on measurements alone is WHY 'you', human beings, are continually changing your stories and continually making more 'predictions'.

Instead of just LOOKING AT what IS alone, most of 'you' tend to LOOK FOR what you guess/assume is correct, and/or hope is true.

For example, instead of looking AT what IS, actually True, which is; there is NO actual origin. Most of 'you' look FOR 'an origin'. This is because of your already held presumptions and beliefs.

These already gained presumptions and beliefs partly explains WHY 'you', human beings, come up with the "measurements/results" that you do, and come up with ALL of these ridiculous and absurd predictions and assumptions that you provide, and then some of 'you' even start BELIEVING your own assumptions, guesses, and conclusions as being absolutely True. Like, for example, the faster one travels then the slower time moves, or, that the Universe is expanding. These people even BELIEVE that there already is evidence for these.

'Confirmation biases' can lead people, completely, astray, without ANY clue of what is ACTUALLY happening and occurring to them.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Dec 13, 2020 10:11 am

raw_thought wrote: ↑Wed Sep 16, 2020 12:27 am Here is an argument that is true but invalid. 1. Obama was president. 2. Nixon was president. 3. Therefore my dog's name is Varnog. Here is an argument that is valid but not true. 1. All Martians eat snakes. 2. Bob is a Martian. 3. Therefore, Bob eats snakes.

The trivial distinction between Philosophers and Physicists is that 1&2 are irrelevant if 3 agrees with observation.

Just because my argument is invalid, or that my premises are false - it doesn't mean my conclusion is not true.

You are committing the fallacy fallacy

raw_thought wrote: ↑Wed Sep 16, 2020 12:27 am Hawking was a GREAT physicist. But a really bad philosopher.

That assertion necessarily depends on some normative/ontological idea for the inherent properties of a "good philosophers".

My personal opinion: "good philosopher" is an oxymoron.

This is OBVIOUSLY because of YOUR 'confirmation biases', which have been CLEARLY VISIBLE and SEEN throughout this forum.

What does the word 'philosopher' ACTUALLY mean in the first place?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Dec 13, 2020 10:11 am

raw_thought wrote: ↑Wed Sep 16, 2020 12:27 am He was a self-proclaimed logical positivist, a philosophy now known for only one thing it is self-refuting.

It isn't self-refuting. Philosophers have simply chosen to (mis?)interpret self-affirmation as self-refutation.

One's modus ponens is another's modus tollens...

raw_thought wrote: ↑Wed Sep 16, 2020 12:27 am The core of LP is the proposition that any proposition that is not empirical or analytical is meaningless.

That's all dandy as a proposition, but it's undecidable....

Also, it really depends on whether you interpret the above sentence as being made outside the system e.g it's an expression in the meta-language.
Or whether you think it's a sentence being made inside the system e.g it's an expression in the object language.

raw_thought wrote: ↑Wed Sep 16, 2020 12:27 am Is the core of LP empirical? NO!

How have you decided that?

Much of late-20th and 21st century science is of the opinion that logic is empirical. Following in the footsteps of Quine.

raw_thought wrote: ↑Wed Sep 16, 2020 12:27 am Is it analytical? NO!

How have you decided that?

raw_thought wrote: ↑Wed Sep 16, 2020 12:27 am Therefore by LP's own core doctrine LP is meaningless!

The fact of the matter is that all non-empirical philosophical questions are undecidable: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_problem

Is this ABSOLUTELY and IRREFUTABLY True?

Age wrote: ↑Sun Dec 13, 2020 11:44 am

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Dec 13, 2020 10:11 am

raw_thought wrote: ↑Wed Sep 16, 2020 12:27 am Are physicists good at philosophy? It seems to me that they confuse ontology ( what is ) with what we know ( epistemology ).

The confusion (if there is any) on the side of philosophers, not the physicists.

Physicists understand the implications of Kant's philosophy. Epistemology describes phenomena. Ontology describes noumena.
But we, humans, don't have access to noumena. So we are describing the unknowable? It begs a question: How do you describe something you don't know anything about?

Trivially: The distinction between ontology and epistemology is still only a conceptual distinction.

All concepts are epistemic phenomena.

raw_thought wrote: ↑Wed Sep 16, 2020 12:27 am For example, the common sense solution to Heisenberg's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle is that just because it is impossible to know the position and the momentum of a particle simultaneously does not mean that they do not have a location and speed.

So... location and speed are not ontological matters, they are still epistemic matters.

The epistemic concept of "Location" (a.k.a position) is only meaningful with respect to some coordinate system which necessitates geometry.
The epistemic concept of "Speed" is only meaningful with respect to "change in location" which necessitates calculus.

raw_thought wrote: ↑Wed Sep 16, 2020 12:27 am My degree is not in physics, so I am probably missing something. But to me they do not understand the difference between truth and validity. They might have all the facts but their argument is not valid.

Physicists are not in the business of constructing arguments.

Physicists are in the business of constructing formal expressions which make predictions that agree with measurement.

Constructing 'formal expressions', or stories, based on measurements alone is WHY 'you', human beings, are continually changing your stories and continually making more 'predictions'.

Instead of just LOOKING AT what IS alone, most of 'you' tend to LOOK FOR what you guess/assume is correct, and/or hope is true.

For example, instead of looking AT what IS, actually True, which is; there is NO actual origin. Most of 'you' look FOR 'an origin'. This is because of your already held presumptions and beliefs.

These already gained presumptions and beliefs partly explains WHY 'you', human beings, come up with the "measurements/results" that you do, and come up with ALL of these ridiculous and absurd predictions and assumptions that you provide, and then some of 'you' even start BELIEVING your own assumptions, guesses, and conclusions as being absolutely True. Like, for example, the faster one travels then the slower time moves, or, that the Universe is expanding. These people even BELIEVE that there already is evidence for these.

'Confirmation biases' can lead people, completely, astray, without ANY clue of what is ACTUALLY happening and occurring to them.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Dec 13, 2020 10:11 am

raw_thought wrote: ↑Wed Sep 16, 2020 12:27 am Here is an argument that is true but invalid. 1. Obama was president. 2. Nixon was president. 3. Therefore my dog's name is Varnog. Here is an argument that is valid but not true. 1. All Martians eat snakes. 2. Bob is a Martian. 3. Therefore, Bob eats snakes.

The trivial distinction between Philosophers and Physicists is that 1&2 are irrelevant if 3 agrees with observation.

Just because my argument is invalid, or that my premises are false - it doesn't mean my conclusion is not true.

You are committing the fallacy fallacy

raw_thought wrote: ↑Wed Sep 16, 2020 12:27 am Hawking was a GREAT physicist. But a really bad philosopher.

That assertion necessarily depends on some normative/ontological idea for the inherent properties of a "good philosophers".

My personal opinion: "good philosopher" is an oxymoron.

This is OBVIOUSLY because of YOUR 'confirmation biases', which have been CLEARLY VISIBLE and SEEN throughout this forum.

What does the word 'philosopher' ACTUALLY mean in the first place?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Dec 13, 2020 10:11 am

raw_thought wrote: ↑Wed Sep 16, 2020 12:27 am He was a self-proclaimed logical positivist, a philosophy now known for only one thing it is self-refuting.

It isn't self-refuting. Philosophers have simply chosen to (mis?)interpret self-affirmation as self-refutation.

One's modus ponens is another's modus tollens...

raw_thought wrote: ↑Wed Sep 16, 2020 12:27 am The core of LP is the proposition that any proposition that is not empirical or analytical is meaningless.

That's all dandy as a proposition, but it's undecidable....

Also, it really depends on whether you interpret the above sentence as being made outside the system e.g it's an expression in the meta-language.
Or whether you think it's a sentence being made inside the system e.g it's an expression in the object language.

raw_thought wrote: ↑Wed Sep 16, 2020 12:27 am Is the core of LP empirical? NO!

How have you decided that?

Much of late-20th and 21st century science is of the opinion that logic is empirical. Following in the footsteps of Quine.

raw_thought wrote: ↑Wed Sep 16, 2020 12:27 am Is it analytical? NO!

How have you decided that?

raw_thought wrote: ↑Wed Sep 16, 2020 12:27 am Therefore by LP's own core doctrine LP is meaningless!

The fact of the matter is that all non-empirical philosophical questions are undecidable: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_problem

Is this ABSOLUTELY and IRREFUTABLY True?

You have confirmed a whole lot of your biases in this post.

uwot wrote: ↑Sun Nov 22, 2020 2:24 pm

raw_thought wrote: ↑Wed Sep 16, 2020 12:27 amAre physicists good at philosophy? It seems to me that they confuse ontology ( what is ) with what we know ( epistemology ).

There's a lot of questions you can ask about a thing. The big three* are: Where is it from?

The EXACT SAME place as EVERY thing else, fundamentally, IS. That is; Thee infinite and eternal Universe, Itself, which is just a combination of matter AND space, together.

uwot wrote: ↑Sun Nov 22, 2020 2:24 pm What is it made of?

The EXACT SAME as EVERY thing else, fundamentally, IS. That is; A combination of matter AND space, together.

uwot wrote: ↑Sun Nov 22, 2020 2:24 pm How does it work?

The EXACT SAME as EVERY thing else, fundamentally, works. That is; Through and from a combination of matter AND space, together.

uwot wrote: ↑Sun Nov 22, 2020 2:24 pm Physics is primarily about the last one and even that should be understood as two separate questions: What does it do?

The EXACT SAME as EVERY thing else, fundamentally, does. That is; Evolves, through and from a combination of matter AND space, together, which allows ALL things to move COMPLETELY FREELY.

uwot wrote: ↑Sun Nov 22, 2020 2:24 pm and Why does it do that?

The EXACT SAME reason WHY EVERY thing else, fundamentally, evolves. That is; Because it has NO other option.

There is NO thing that is able to stop change, nor stop changing.

By the way, some people would argue strongly that physics, or science, is NOT about 'why' questions at all.

uwot wrote: ↑Sun Nov 22, 2020 2:24 pm Of all those questions, the only one that can be answered with any certainty is What does it do?

If that is ONLY what 'you' can answer with 'any certainty', then so be it.

But, contrary to YOUR BELIEF, some "others" can answer other questions with 'absolutely certainty'.

uwot wrote: ↑Sun Nov 22, 2020 2:24 pm The reason you can be fairly certain of what something does is because you can watch it doing so.

So, are you suggesting here that what 'you' observe, and say is observed, is 'certainly true'?

uwot wrote: ↑Sun Nov 22, 2020 2:24 pm All the other questions you can answer pretty much as you please, provided your answer is consistent with what you see happening.

So, are you saying that if one says that the sun revolves around the earth, and that this is consistent with what they, and you, see happening, then this is 'certainly true' or just 'true'?

raw_thought wrote: ↑Wed Sep 16, 2020 12:27 amMy degree is not in physics, so I am probably missing something. But to me they do not understand the difference between truth and validity.

Well 'they' is a sweeping term but while not all physicists are rocket scientists, most will concede that if predictions aren't matched by observations, something is wrong with the theory - at least something about it is not true. That doesn't stop it being true enough for some purpose. [/quote]

If people just STOPPED making up 'theories/stories' and so STOPPED looking to validate or invalidate these 'theories/stories', and just concentrated on what ACTUALLY IS, then NONE of these issues would arise.

uwot wrote: ↑Sun Nov 22, 2020 2:24 pm *Christianity answers these with: god the father, god the son and god the holy ghost - the anthropomorphism of creation, matter and energy. As such genesis, like most creation myths explains where the world came from, what it is made of and how it works - as in Why does it do that? There's very little detail on what the world actually does, which is why religion and science have nothing to do with each other.

But people on both "sides" still tend to generally BELIEVE that there was "a beginning". As can be CLEARLY SEEN and HEARD in the written and spoken words in BOTH 'science' AND 'religion'.

Which partly explains WHY most people on both "sides" are still to this day, when this is being written, NO closer to SEEING and KNOWING thee ACTUAL Truth of things, from where they were thousands upon thousands of years ago.

'Confirmation biases' is what IS STOPPING 'you', human beings, from SEEING and KNOWING thee ACTUAL Truth.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Dec 13, 2020 12:00 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Dec 13, 2020 11:44 am

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Dec 13, 2020 10:11 am
The confusion (if there is any) on the side of philosophers, not the physicists.

Physicists understand the implications of Kant's philosophy. Epistemology describes phenomena. Ontology describes noumena.
But we, humans, don't have access to noumena. So we are describing the unknowable? It begs a question: How do you describe something you don't know anything about?

Trivially: The distinction between ontology and epistemology is still only a conceptual distinction.

All concepts are epistemic phenomena.


So... location and speed are not ontological matters, they are still epistemic matters.

The epistemic concept of "Location" (a.k.a position) is only meaningful with respect to some coordinate system which necessitates geometry.
The epistemic concept of "Speed" is only meaningful with respect to "change in location" which necessitates calculus.



Physicists are not in the business of constructing arguments.

Physicists are in the business of constructing formal expressions which make predictions that agree with measurement.

Constructing 'formal expressions', or stories, based on measurements alone is WHY 'you', human beings, are continually changing your stories and continually making more 'predictions'.

Instead of just LOOKING AT what IS alone, most of 'you' tend to LOOK FOR what you guess/assume is correct, and/or hope is true.

For example, instead of looking AT what IS, actually True, which is; there is NO actual origin. Most of 'you' look FOR 'an origin'. This is because of your already held presumptions and beliefs.

These already gained presumptions and beliefs partly explains WHY 'you', human beings, come up with the "measurements/results" that you do, and come up with ALL of these ridiculous and absurd predictions and assumptions that you provide, and then some of 'you' even start BELIEVING your own assumptions, guesses, and conclusions as being absolutely True. Like, for example, the faster one travels then the slower time moves, or, that the Universe is expanding. These people even BELIEVE that there already is evidence for these.

'Confirmation biases' can lead people, completely, astray, without ANY clue of what is ACTUALLY happening and occurring to them.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Dec 13, 2020 10:11 am
The trivial distinction between Philosophers and Physicists is that 1&2 are irrelevant if 3 agrees with observation.

Just because my argument is invalid, or that my premises are false - it doesn't mean my conclusion is not true.

You are committing the fallacy fallacy


That assertion necessarily depends on some normative/ontological idea for the inherent properties of a "good philosophers".

My personal opinion: "good philosopher" is an oxymoron.

This is OBVIOUSLY because of YOUR 'confirmation biases', which have been CLEARLY VISIBLE and SEEN throughout this forum.

What does the word 'philosopher' ACTUALLY mean in the first place?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Dec 13, 2020 10:11 am
It isn't self-refuting. Philosophers have simply chosen to (mis?)interpret self-affirmation as self-refutation.

One's modus ponens is another's modus tollens...


That's all dandy as a proposition, but it's undecidable....

Also, it really depends on whether you interpret the above sentence as being made outside the system e.g it's an expression in the meta-language.
Or whether you think it's a sentence being made inside the system e.g it's an expression in the object language.


How have you decided that?

Much of late-20th and 21st century science is of the opinion that logic is empirical. Following in the footsteps of Quine.


How have you decided that?




The fact of the matter is that all non-empirical philosophical questions are undecidable: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_problem

Is this ABSOLUTELY and IRREFUTABLY True?

You have confirmed a whole lot of your biases in this post.

This is VERY BIG CLAIM you make here.

Now, are you able to back up and support YOUR CLAIM here?

If yes, then what do you propose are the 'whole lot' of 'my biases', in this post?

Only after you have provided them, are we then able to LOOK AT them AND be able to discuss them.

Until then what you say here is just a completely unsubstantiated claim.