Can the Sciences Prove that Something is True?

[lewisnotmiller]

Please document any scientific discovery that was procedurally derived from methodological naturalism.

Phhht...come on now. I'm not suggesting that. I'm suggesting (for example) that methodological naturalism allowed Newton to do actual science despite his somewhat out there beliefs.

 

[Sunstone]

Phhht...come on now. I'm not suggesting that. I'm suggesting (for example) that methodological naturalism allowed Newton to do actual science despite his somewhat out there beliefs.

Do you have even one bit of evidence that Newton felt it was necessary for him to work out a philosophy of methodological naturalism in order to do science?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Do you have even one bit of evidence that Newton felt it was necessary for him to work out a philosophy of methodological naturalism in order to do science?

The fact that he didn't go with 'intelligent falling'?

 

[idav]

Can the sciences prove that something is true? "Proof" in this context means to demonstrate with certainty that something is the case. The emphasis here is on "certainty".

I would argue that while certainty is possible in mathematics and deductive logic, it is not possible in the sciences. There is always the possibility, however remote, that something might not be the case. This is in part because of the fact that science crucially rests on empirical evidence, and empirical evidence is by its very nature uncertain. As Hume pointed out centuries ago, the mere fact the sun has always risen each day does not entail that the sun will rise tomorrow. Although it is likely that it will rise, it is conceivable that it might not. At most, the sciences can provide an overwhelming weight of logical reasoning and empirical evidence in support of a notion that something is the case, but they cannot provide us with certainty that something is the case.

But what do you think?

I think even math doesn't give certainty cause math can just make stuff up. Science doesn't make stuff up. I think a lot of times math and science go so hand in hand that they are hard to distinguish. When Einstein was predicting black holes a hundred years ago was he using science or math? When predictions go as planned certainty is rather unnecessary.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

“Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds.” -- Richard Feynman.

If birds could understand ornithology it would be extremely useful to them. I mean is he is suggesting scientists can't understand the philosophy of science? Kind of a senseless quote if you ask me.

Since you like quotes here is a few for you:

“The owl of Minerva spreads its wings only with the falling of the dusk.” - G.W.F. Hegel

"The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it." - Karl Marx

When you follow this line of thought all the way through, Sunstone, it leads right back to the start. Reality is reality, truth is truth, and certainty is certainty.

 

[Sunstone]

If birds could understand ornithology it would be extremely useful to them. I mean is he is suggesting scientists can't understand the philosophy of science? Kind of a senseless quote if you ask me.

I think the quote is pretty much self-explanatory and I suspect you are only pretending not to get it, perhaps because you have no satisfactory response to it.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

I think the quote is pretty much self-explanatory and I suspect you are only pretending not to get it, perhaps because you have no satisfactory response to it.

I am not "pretending not to get it", I genuinely think it is a senseless quote.

 

[Sunstone]

I am not "pretending not to get it", I genuinely think it is a senseless quote.

I'm having a hard time believing someone as bright as you can't understand that quote.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

I'm having a hard time believing someone as bright as you can't understand that quote.

I understand the quote, I just disagree with what it is saying. It is possible to disagree with a quote.

 

[Polymath257]

I am not "pretending not to get it", I genuinely think it is a senseless quote.

It is a perfectly true quote. Most of the philosophy of science is completely irrelevant to the actual conduct of science. The problems that philosophers consider are beside the point of what most scientists worry about. And the conclusions of philosophy are generally of no help whatsoever to the scientists or the understanding of science.

This is in the same way that the investigations of ornithologists is completely independent of actually being a bird and living your life as you would as a bird. The main difference is that ornithology would actually inform birds about how birds do things. Philosophy of science doesn't even do that.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

It is a perfectly true quote. Most of the philosophy of science is completely irrelevant to the actual conduct of science. The problems that philosophers consider are beside the point of what most scientists worry about. And the conclusions of philosophy are generally of no help whatsoever to the scientists or the understanding of science.

This is in the same way that the investigations of ornithologists is completely independent of actually being a bird and living your life as you would as a bird. The main difference is that ornithology would actually inform birds about how birds do things. Philosophy of science doesn't even do that.

"Most of the philosophy of science is completely irrelevant to the actual conduct of science. "

Where do you think this "conduct of science" came from? And how do you think it is further refined?

 

[Revoltingest]

I think even math doesn't give certainty cause math can just make stuff up. Science doesn't make stuff up. I think a lot of times math and science go so hand in hand that they are hard to distinguish. When Einstein was predicting black holes a hundred years ago was he using science or math? When predictions go as planned certainty is rather unnecessary.

To clarify, I'd say that math is just a tool for creating models of the universe's behavior.
And any model can be either right (ie, useful) or wrong.

Let me bore you with an analogy.
Math is like a hammer.
Just because you're using it, doesn't mean you're hitting the right target.
You could hit a nail or your thumb.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

The methods of science are not perfect and there is still a lot of room for scientific philosophizing to improve those methods.

 

[Polymath257]

"Most of the philosophy of science is completely irrelevant to the actual conduct of science. "

Where do you think this "conduct of science" came from? And how do you think it is further refined?

It comes from scientists actually trying to figure things out, model what they see, and test it. It is refined by trying to find better detectors and better models. The problems of philosophy are what real scientists play with over beers after they do the real work.

 

[Polymath257]

The methods of science are not perfect and there is still a lot of room for scientific philosophizing to improve those methods.

The methods that need to be modified tend to be technicalities of detectors or analysis, not in the basic philosophy. Once again, the issues philosophers deal with are *completely* irrelevant to what most scientists do. Plus, philosophers tend to not understand enough of the actual science to even give reasonable critiques of what is being done. They are so involved in *classical* notions, often deriving from Aristotle or Plato that *whatever* they say is laughable.

For example, Bohmian mechanics is really *only* discussed by philosophers. It simply isn't a part of how most physicists, even quantum physicists model the world. Why? Because it is an ugly description that is difficult to use and gives the same answers as the easier methods typically taught. That philosophers like it because it is closer to classical thinking is irrelevant.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

The methods that need to be modified tend to be technicalities of detectors or analysis, not in the basic philosophy. Once again, the issues philosophers deal with are *completely* irrelevant to what most scientists do. Plus, philosophers tend to not understand enough of the actual science to even give reasonable critiques of what is being done. They are so involved in *classical* notions, often deriving from Aristotle or Plato that *whatever* they say is laughable.

For example, Bohmian mechanics is really *only* discussed by philosophers. It simply isn't a part of how most physicists, even quantum physicists model the world. Why? Because it is an ugly description that is difficult to use and gives the same answers as the easier methods typically taught. That philosophers like it because it is closer to classical thinking is irrelevant.

"Plus, philosophers tend to not understand enough of the actual science to even give reasonable critiques of what is being done."

That is a stereotype, dude. Personally, I don't think that you have a very strong understanding of philosophy. To the Ancient Greeks philosophy was the love of the pursuit truth. Plato/Socrates reasoned that things like mathematics and astronomy was fundamental to philosophical thought. Philosophy does not have to be conducted by academic philosophers and like math it is everywhere. It is the process of applying practical applications of human reason to uncovering truth. This idea that there are these strict boundaries between the various recognized disciplines is an misconception some of the posters here seem to cling to. Yes, there are focused academics, but they are interlinked to one another. The scientific method is a philosophical process.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

I found this article which I think is relevant to the discussion; it also has a brief section on the the history of the scientific method.

Scientific Method (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

[Polymath257]

"Plus, philosophers tend to not understand enough of the actual science to even give reasonable critiques of what is being done."

That is a stereotype, dude. Personally, I don't think that you have a very strong understanding of philosophy. To the Ancient Greeks philosophy was the love of the pursuit truth. Plato/Socrates reasoned that things like mathematics and astronomy was fundamental to philosophical thought. Philosophy does not have to be conducted by academic philosophers and like math it is everywhere. It is the process of applying practical applications of human reason to uncovering truth. This idea that there are these strict boundaries between the various recognized disciplines is an misconception some of the posters here seem to cling to. Yes, there are focused academics, but they are interlinked to one another. The scientific method is a philosophical process.

No, it is not a stereotype. It is an opinion based on many discussions with philosophers and from studying their writings about the processes of science. Almost no philosopher shows an awareness of how to solve a differential equation, let alone how that affects our understanding of even classical physics. No philosopher understands why Newtonian and Lagrangian physics are considered to be the same even though they are philosophically quite different. And all seem to be so committed to classical imagery that they completely fail to grasp what quantum mechanics is saying.

 

[Polymath257]

I found this article which I think is relevant to the discussion; it also has a brief section on the the history of the scientific method.

Scientific Method (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Yes, that is a very good example of the type of thing that is completely irrelevant to working scientists.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

No, it is not a stereotype. It is an opinion based on many discussions with philosophers and from studying their writings about the processes of science. Almost no philosopher shows an awareness of how to solve a differential equation, let alone how that affects our understanding of even classical physics. No philosopher understands why Newtonian and Lagrangian physics are considered to be the same even though they are philosophically quite different. And all seem to be so committed to classical imagery that they completely fail to grasp what quantum mechanics is saying.

You clearly don't know what a stereotype is and you seem to have some type of beef with philosophers.