Fact, Belief, and Faith

[Skwim]

While I understand the difference that concerns you between empirical and theoretical, you never addressed my point, which is that science cannot "work" unless we accept certain axioms, for example, that empirical proof works, that observations may be false or true and etc.

These require that we accept that math and logic are real. Math and logic may be theorized and inductively observed, but are metaphysical.

Will you deny or instead affirm that science must rest on metaphysics?

I suggest you look up the meaning of "metaphysics." In the mean time let me help you get started. I'm not going to bother to explain where your thinking has gone awry---I don't care enough---but simply give a tool to figure it out. That tool is a look at metaphysics in science from Wikipedia.

"Metaphysics in science
Prior to the modern history of science, scientific questions were addressed as a part of natural philosophy. Originally, the term "science" (Latin scientia) simply meant "knowledge". The scientific method, however, transformed natural philosophy into an empirical activity deriving from experiment, unlike the rest of philosophy. By the end of the 18th century, it had begun to be called "science" to distinguish it from philosophy. Thereafter, metaphysics denoted philosophical enquiry of a non-empirical character into the nature of existence.

Metaphysics continues asking "why" where science leaves off. For example, any theory of fundamental physics is based on some set of axioms, which may postulate the existence of entities such as atoms, particles, forces, charges, mass, or fields. Stating such postulates is considered to be the "end" of a science theory. Metaphysics takes these postulates and explores what they mean as human concepts. For example, do all theories of physics require the existence of space and time, objects, and properties? Or can they be expressed using only objects, or only properties? Do the objects have to retain their identity over time or do they change? If they change, then are they still the same object? Can theories be reformulated by converting properties or predicates (such as "red") into entities (such as redness or redness fields). Is the distinction between objects and properties fundamental to the physical world or to our perception of it?"
​

There's a couple of key statements in there, I hope you didn't miss them.

.
​

 

[gnostic]

While I understand the difference that concerns you between empirical and theoretical, you never addressed my point, which is that science cannot "work" unless we accept certain axioms, for example, that empirical proof works, that observations may be false or true and etc.

It is “empirical evidence”, not “empirical proof”.

And you are still not understanding the differences between empirical/experimental science and theoretical science.

1. Empirical science (scientific theory) relies on real-world evidences, through the mean of experiments or discovering verifiable evidences, through applying the Scientific Method.
2. Theoretical science (is not scientific theory) are based on proof, and proof is either logical or mathematical statements, like solving complex equation. Theoretical science are usually “untestable”, but provable, so it don’t use the Scientific Method.

Of these two, only the empirical science is real science. Theoretical science, is more like hypothesis, meaning a proposed explanation to a specific field, but useful, mathematically and logically.

Neither of these are “axiomatic”. They are not self-evident, nor unquestionable. Both can be challenged.

To give you an example, the Big Bang model was originally described as “expanding universe model”, and was originally theoretical model, not empirical science.

3 different physicists during the 1920s came up with nearly identical explanations as to how the universe came to be.

1. Alexander Friedmann, Russian, 1922
2. Howard Percy Robertson, American, 1924-25
3. and Georges Lemaître, Belgian, 1927

All 3 men came up the idea, by solving Albert Einstein’s equations from General Relativity with their respective constants, to theoretically (mathematically) the universe is expanding.

So we have 3 theoretical explanations & predictions for the same model.

It was Robertson, who came up with the idea (in his papers), predicting that two objects, like galaxies, the spectrum of light would their wavelengths to red, indicating galaxies were moving away from each other. This was known as Redshift, and it was later observed by Edwin Hubble, in 1929.

The Redshift was first piece of evidence, that the Universe was, is, still expanding. But it wasn’t strong evidence, but it was evidence, nevertheless.

The next phase of the expanding universe model (Big Bang) were made by a group of scientists in 1948.


George Gamow (Russian) assisted by his former student, Ralph Alpher (American), came up with the idea of the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis, which described how the first matters (atoms) were formed, eg the nucleus forming a shell over proton(s) and neutron(s).

And Alpher together with his American colleague, Robert Herman, wrote the paper, predicting Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR), which is the earliest observable light from young universe (before the first formation of stars and galaxies.

CMBR is emitted due to electrons bonding with ionised hydrogen and helium atoms to form electrical neutral atoms, thereby releasing radiation (CMBR).

These were predicted in 1948, but CMBR wasn’t discovered until 1964, by 2 astronomers, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson. The background radiation was accidental discovery, when they were setting up satellite dish.

And CMBR were further confirmed by radio telescopes and space telescopes (eg COBE, WMAP, and Plank probe).

This evidence was much stronger evidence for the Big Bang model, and it is what turn the BB from theoretical field into empirical field.

My example, just show that theoretical science isn’t real science, until they backed up by verifiable evidences.

A lot of the theoretical fields, such as Multiverse model, String and Superstring models, haven’t achieved experimental or empirical status, like the Big Bang theory; it may happen in the future, or it may never happen. The Big Bang theory is a real “scientific theory”, these others (theoretical models) are not “scientific theory”.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I suggest you look up the meaning of "metaphysics." In the mean time let me help you get started. I'm not going to bother to explain where your thinking has gone awry---I don't care enough---but simply give a tool to figure it out. That tool is a look at metaphysics in science from Wikipedia.

"Metaphysics in science
Prior to the modern history of science, scientific questions were addressed as a part of natural philosophy. Originally, the term "science" (Latin scientia) simply meant "knowledge". The scientific method, however, transformed natural philosophy into an empirical activity deriving from experiment, unlike the rest of philosophy. By the end of the 18th century, it had begun to be called "science" to distinguish it from philosophy. Thereafter, metaphysics denoted philosophical enquiry of a non-empirical character into the nature of existence.

Metaphysics continues asking "why" where science leaves off. For example, any theory of fundamental physics is based on some set of axioms, which may postulate the existence of entities such as atoms, particles, forces, charges, mass, or fields. Stating such postulates is considered to be the "end" of a science theory. Metaphysics takes these postulates and explores what they mean as human concepts. For example, do all theories of physics require the existence of space and time, objects, and properties? Or can they be expressed using only objects, or only properties? Do the objects have to retain their identity over time or do they change? If they change, then are they still the same object? Can theories be reformulated by converting properties or predicates (such as "red") into entities (such as redness or redness fields). Is the distinction between objects and properties fundamental to the physical world or to our perception of it?"
​

There's a couple of key statements in there, I hope you didn't miss them.

.
​

Thanks for your detailed note:

Metaphysics: the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space . . .

Are you saying that math, logic, justice, love and spirit have empirical weight and can be measured using empirical tools? Are you saying that math and logic are PHYSICAL or METAPHYSICAL?

 

[BilliardsBall]

It is “empirical evidence”, not “empirical proof”.

And you are still not understanding the differences between empirical/experimental science and theoretical science.

1. Empirical science (scientific theory) relies on real-world evidences, through the mean of experiments or discovering verifiable evidences, through applying the Scientific Method.
2. Theoretical science (is not scientific theory) are based on proof, and proof is either logical or mathematical statements, like solving complex equation. Theoretical science are usually “untestable”, but provable, so it don’t use the Scientific Method.

Of these two, only the empirical science is real science. Theoretical science, is more like hypothesis, meaning a proposed explanation to a specific field, but useful, mathematically and logically.

Neither of these are “axiomatic”. They are not self-evident, nor unquestionable. Both can be challenged.

To give you an example, the Big Bang model was originally described as “expanding universe model”, and was originally theoretical model, not empirical science.

3 different physicists during the 1920s came up with nearly identical explanations as to how the universe came to be.

1. Alexander Friedmann, Russian, 1922
2. Howard Percy Robertson, American, 1924-25
3. and Georges Lemaître, Belgian, 1927

All 3 men came up the idea, by solving Albert Einstein’s equations from General Relativity with their respective constants, to theoretically (mathematically) the universe is expanding.

So we have 3 theoretical explanations & predictions for the same model.

It was Robertson, who came up with the idea (in his papers), predicting that two objects, like galaxies, the spectrum of light would their wavelengths to red, indicating galaxies were moving away from each other. This was known as Redshift, and it was later observed by Edwin Hubble, in 1929.

The Redshift was first piece of evidence, that the Universe was, is, still expanding. But it wasn’t strong evidence, but it was evidence, nevertheless.

The next phase of the expanding universe model (Big Bang) were made by a group of scientists in 1948.


George Gamow (Russian) assisted by his former student, Ralph Alpher (American), came up with the idea of the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis, which described how the first matters (atoms) were formed, eg the nucleus forming a shell over proton(s) and neutron(s).

And Alpher together with his American colleague, Robert Herman, wrote the paper, predicting Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR), which is the earliest observable light from young universe (before the first formation of stars and galaxies.

CMBR is emitted due to electrons bonding with ionised hydrogen and helium atoms to form electrical neutral atoms, thereby releasing radiation (CMBR).

These were predicted in 1948, but CMBR wasn’t discovered until 1964, by 2 astronomers, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson. The background radiation was accidental discovery, when they were setting up satellite dish.

And CMBR were further confirmed by radio telescopes and space telescopes (eg COBE, WMAP, and Plank probe).

This evidence was much stronger evidence for the Big Bang model, and it is what turn the BB from theoretical field into empirical field.

My example, just show that theoretical science isn’t real science, until they backed up by verifiable evidences.

A lot of the theoretical fields, such as Multiverse model, String and Superstring models, haven’t achieved experimental or empirical status, like the Big Bang theory; it may happen in the future, or it may never happen. The Big Bang theory is a real “scientific theory”, these others (theoretical models) are not “scientific theory”.

Okay, thank you for sharing. Now would you mind addressing what I wrote? I will restate it here:

Science can look at physical things. Math and logic are metaphysical and have no physical mass/energy/timespace.

Do you disagree or agree that without accepting metaphysical axioms (truth exists, math exists) that science becomes somewhat meaningless?

Again, we have to accept that logic is "real" (I can prove a thing true or false) before we accept that any branch of science can prove anything true or false. If there's no axiomatic, universal truth or falsity, science isn't "proving" anything. Proof has to do with logical and mathematical proof.

Please restate your belief if you disagree or ask me more questions, instead of being rhetorical and ignoring my question.

Thanks!

 

[Skwim]

Are you saying that math, logic, justice, love and spirit have empirical weight and can be measured using empirical tools?

I' haven't the slightest idea of what you mean by "empirical weight." Nor do I know what measuring using empirical tools might entail.

Are you saying that math and logic are PHYSICAL or METAPHYSICAL?

No. I'm saying, "There's a couple of key statements in there, I hope you didn't miss them."

.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I' haven't the slightest idea of what you mean by "empirical weight." Nor do I know what measuring using empirical tools might entail.


No. I'm saying, "There's a couple of key statements in there, I hope you didn't miss them."

.

I didn't miss them, and examined the links you sent me and the ideas you posted.

Are math and logic physical or metaphysical?

 

[gnostic]

BilliardsBall, the areas of science that I have studied, as first civil engineer, than later in computer science (mostly in the programming and software engineering) does involve some maths and logic, but they have real world application, hence, the physics I used in both courses, relied on evidences too.

The science I did and used, is where math and logic, go hand-in-hand with evidences, test results and data.

So there is little to zero “philosophy” in my the physics and maths subjects in the courses I was doing.

Because the science I have engineering applications, there were no study of metaphysics or any other philosophies.

Science as used in the real world, leave aside the philosophies, in particular metaphysics.

The only questions that scientists need to ask, are two main question types: WHAT and HOW.

These are the very basics that science required:

• What is it?
• How does it work?
• What are the applications for it?
• How do I do i make it work?

The WHY type of question are secondary. Most of time, I wouldn’t even bother to ask WHY, because once I understand the WHAT and HOW, the WHY get answer from the others.

And the WHO is the least important of question-type.

Metaphysics, as with most other philosophies, are mainly concern finding answers to the WHY questions.

Metaphysics is a philosophy that concern itself with the “existence” of things, which is good for philosophy and religions, but unnecessary in science.

For instance, in science, if you were to study cattle, the questions would be like:

• What is a cow?
• What do they eat?
• How do they breed and when?
• What can a cow be used for? (eg, the meat as food consumption, milk for consumption or to be used in making butter or cake, etc, leather for clothing, etc)
• How many cow does Tom’s farm owned?
• ...and so on.

Philosophers in metaphysics would waste their times, asking useless questions, like “why do cow exist?”

And even if they were answer this question, and instead of being satisfied with the answer, it can lead them to asking if the existence of the cow is real or illusion.

Sorry, but I find metaphysics in science to be useless and a bloody waste of time.

 

[Audie]

BilliardsBall, the areas of science that I have studied, as first civil engineer, than later in computer science (mostly in the programming and software engineering) does involve some maths and logic, but they have real world application, hence, the physics I used in both courses, relied on evidences too.

The science I did and used, is where math and logic, go hand-in-hand with evidences, test results and data.

So there is little to zero “philosophy” in my the physics and maths subjects in the courses I was doing.

Because the science I have engineering applications, there were no study of metaphysics or any other philosophies.

Science as used in the real world, leave aside the philosophies, in particular metaphysics.

The only questions that scientists need to ask, are two main question types: WHAT and HOW.

These are the very basics that science required:

• What is it?
• How does it work?
• What are the applications for it?
• How do I do i make it work?

The WHY type of question are secondary. Most of time, I wouldn’t even bother to ask WHY, because once I understand the WHAT and HOW, the WHY get answer from the others.

And the WHO is the least important of question-type.

Metaphysics, as with most other philosophies, are mainly concern finding answers to the WHY questions.

Metaphysics is a philosophy that concern itself with the “existence” of things, which is good for philosophy and religions, but unnecessary in science.

For instance, in science, if you were to study cattle, the questions would be like:

• What is a cow?
• What do they eat?
• How do they breed and when?
• What can a cow be used for? (eg, the meat as food consumption, milk for consumption or to be used in making butter or cake, etc, leather for clothing, etc)
• How many cow does Tom’s farm owned?
• ...and so on.

Philosophers in metaphysics would waste their times, asking useless questions, like “why do cow exist?”

And even if they were answer this question, and instead of being satisfied with the answer, it can lead them to asking if the existence of the cow is real or illusion.

Sorry, but I find metaphysics in science to be useless and a bloody waste of time.

I think the whole point of bringing up metaphysics / philosophy is a try at finding the soft underbelly of
science, and stabbing it there.

In its simplest form and possibly the most brainless
we see it as "it is all assumptions". Or even simpler,
"God says / man says".

 

[gnostic]

I think the whole point of bringing up metaphysics / philosophy is a try at finding the soft underbelly of
science, and stabbing it there.

In its simplest form and possibly the most brainless
we see it as "it is all assumptions". Or even simpler,
"God says / man says".

In the past, science was tied together with certain philosophies, but in the last few centuries, science has been moving away from philosophies, focussing more on hypothesis formulation, empirical evidences or experimentations.

We may have a few philosophies (eg natural philosophy, natural science, empiricism, methodological naturalism, epistemology) that talk of what science should be like, and they may actually be the origin to modern science, but that’s all philosophies are - “just talk”, not actually “doing science”.

BilliardsBall don’t seem to understand that. He doesn’t understand the differences between philosophies and science.

When I was studying physics or chemistry, we only focused on the knowledge of physics and chemistry, and not on any philosophy; there were no need to learn how science originated from this or that philosophies.