[deleted]

This is the hilarious thing about this sub. I don't understand or even study QM so I won't comment on whether the commentors are right, but it does seem that every time some philosophy article comes out referring to QM hordes of people are quick to point out how utterly clueless the author is.

>If you choose not to accept it again then the falsification doesn't occur.

Yes, which is the same problem that induction and verification has. You can infer and verify something then later find out that you can no longer accept it. It applies just as much to falsification as verification.

>One experiment! If you do another experiment it's not a re-litigation of the previous falsification at time 1, it's actually just another falsification at time 2

Well if you are talking about the same type of phenomenon explored several times, I don't see how it is different from the classic example in induction about the sun not rising the next day. In the induction example, sun rises on day 1 but not day 2, in the falsification example instance 1 might be the orbit of some planet and instance 2 might be the discovery that the orbit is affected by some other body. in neither example do verification or falsification are capable of permanently cementing the status of the theories. the finding of the sun not rising on day 2 might even be reversed if it rises on all the days after that and you find some good explanation of why it did not rise on that particular day. my example with the planet orbits depicts a single incidence of newtownan mechanics being falsified which can conceivably be reversed, or was actually reversed depending on how correct my example was.

You will have to forgive my lack of response, but I have been struggling to do so:

I found your initial response and your answer to my ‘intelligence’ question lacking in formality and cohesion. I notice on your profile that your native tongue may be non-english, though I don’t wish to presume.

I decided to browse a few more of your comments on your thread on the Atheist board and I noticed a similar problem. I think your system needs formalisation if it is to be acted upon by yourself and expressed to others.

That is not to imply its foundations are lacking and the underlying ideas not solid, I expect they are accurate; it’s just they lack proper articulation.

From my unhealthy re-re-re-reading of your threads, comments and replies, I think it is clear that the primary focus of your philosophy is that of Epistemological Realism: you hold that there is a reality we can actually grasp in knowledge - you also hold that the increasing accuracy of our models - whether small or big - is proof that there is an reality. Like an arrow drawing closer to its target; the direction of travel implies an existent reality to aim towards, referred to as Laws.

I noticed a lot of people were downvoting your ideas, and if my theory above is correct, I believe that I may have some resolutions for you: terminological and development.

———

So, the former:

I think the word which might be better suited for using, for this apriori object, is “Intelligible” - as a pre-condition of this Intelligence. Because, existence needs to have an essence and ability of comprehensibility to, thus, be perceived. This should allow you to avoid misdiagnosing your metaphysical kernel with the agency of thought, assuming it does not have it, while retaining its structural properties. It also allows you to express your Realism. If you feel there is no differentiation between intelligibility and intelligence, perhaps Logos would suffice, though the draw back would be a religious theme.

For your Going Up and Going Down the terms often associated with those concepts, I believe, are Holism and Reductionism. - if these are right, they will be easier to understand.

I suggest finding a different word than Analogy for “getting that information and relating it to others” - the word itself is used for ‘comparison by similarity’ and pointing to a direction would not really apply here. It may work idiosyncratically in your own nomenclature, but likely not for expressing your ideas to others, which is important for dialectical growth. As for the definition of ‘Analogy’ itself, information is kind of always nested in its relation to another thing, so it is superfluous in this regard.

Here is a book I particularly love:

https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Thesaurus_of_English_Words_and_Phrases_C.html?id=tZ6LGOnMZ7YC&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&gboemv=1&ovdme=1&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

If you scroll through the preview of the book on google it will give a list of words, a thousand or so, all of which will be useful.

———

As for development:

Similar to a hourglass passing sand through a small channel from one chamber to another, I believe your terms and theories - the initial chamber - has led you to the channel of a proto-realism. It is now your responsibility to re-enter into a broader chamber of epistemological study, interact with the ideas there and formalise your ideas in relation to the already understood terminology and history, so others can comprehend you ideas more thoroughly. Then travel through another chamber of clearer philosophical articulation.

If this is not the case in your native language, I definitely believe this is the case with English.

——-

Don’t know if any if this is alright, you clearly have interesting ideas, but your weakness is expressing them.

I'm a big fan of the philosophy of science and the philosophy of mathematics. I love Lakatos and read a bit of Feyerabend too. Definitely a better choice of philosopher to read when learning the history of math and science.

And I’m exactly the opposite — a lifelong theist, who is skeptical that the Twelve Step programs should be the gold standard, let alone the be-all-end-all, of addiction recovery. And nevertheless, you and I more or less agree on this matter, lol. Way too much black-and-white thinking and bandwagon side-taking these days, and it’s frankly refreshing to find people and spaces where that’s not the case. All the best to you this new year, dude. ❤️

[deleted]

[deleted]

Some think of science like the original, Latin root scientia, which generally means knowledge. The modern common use is that it means physics, chemistry, and biology, with some suspicion about what mathematicians are up to! General knowledge, rather than a discipline, emphasizes methodology, which anyone in any discipline can use. Scientific method, therefore, underlies the precepts, pay attention, be intelligent, and responsibly act. In other words, collect data, interpret meaning, verify (or falsify!) fact or knowledge in judgment. In that regard, we can avoid some confusion if we begin by saying what we mean when we use the term science.

Lakatos' book Proofs and Refutations is one of my favorite popular math books. He definitely knows his history of topology.

The author is a not a philosopher of science. His website claims that he is a pop-science writer with a PhD in chemical physics: http://www.jimbaggott.com/.

> so many wannabe philosophers of science

Example?

> escaped to Nagváryad

Nagyvárad (pronounced as ˈnɒɟvaːrɒd)

I’ve never understood why so many wannabe philosophers of science refuse to actually study and understand science. I think we should ban phil majors from ever referring to quantum mechanics unless they have taken more than 1 undergrad physics course.

Edit: this is directed at the author of this article, not Lakatos.

I think if there was a comic background radiation the world would be a much better place.

It shouldn't be forced because people would reasonably reject giving up their freedom of conscious for welfare (principles that can't be reasonably rejected are ethical principles). Because of that, no one has the right to coerce someone else's conscious.

People would agree to principles that would allow for criminal law (as well as a welfare state and a duty to rescue). However, they wouldn't allow their freedom of conscious to be controlled by another. Whether to accept the utility coach's lifeplan is their own decision. This isn't to say that freedom has infinite value, but its not subject to the will of another based on ethical principles.

Yeah. I have been a lifelong atheist and in my opinion anyone unwilling to consider a program because of that is more or less looking for an excuse. This book was written a long time ago and even then the language is “I higher power of YOUR understanding” as well as there being a chapter for agnostics. It’s actually one of the most important chapters.

But I suppose it all depends on the groups in your area. The meetings I attend are very open to all ideas and there are specific atheist meetings if you prefer

Yeah I mean I think it was understood that a literal Christian god would be a turn off which is why there’s a chapter specifically for agnostics. I can get down with “I higher power of your understanding”. It just does not bother me personally in that language

I don't agree at all with what this article is saying. First of all a theory is the hypothesis with the most proof. It doesn't mean it's proven. It just means its better at predicting than other models.

> If a programme predicts nothing new or its predictions can’t be tested, then it is bad science, and might be degenerating to the point of pseudoscience.

Theories have always out paced experimental advancements. General relativity was created during a time where it couldn't be proven. It was only a few years ago that they detected gravitional waves. The Hot vs Cold Big Bang theory wasn't able to be tested until they launched COBE into space to measure if there was a Comic Microwave Background, falsifying the Cold Big Bang and advancing the Hot Big Bang theory. The Dark matter theory has multiple splits, but the main one is with WIMPs (weakly interacting massive particles), which, as the name implies, don't interact with other matter, so how can you use matter to probe it? But DM is there, or at least, something is causing more mass in the universe than there should be based on observations of matter. They mention String theory as a bad science since it can't be falsified. But it just can't be falsified yet. Doesn't mean the theory is incorrect. We just can't prove any of it.

It just seems like the author is conflating "unable to be truly falsified" with "unable to be falsified yet" like their example of astrology vs astronomy. If a theory intrinsically has no way to experiment, then it isnt scientific. "God is blue" isn't the same as "Dark matter exists."

There's always been a cycle of conjuring a theory that needs to wait for experimental advancements to catch up. And I would agrue that this strongly propels science forward. If we name these theories as "bad science," then how would we ever advance? How would we ever challenge ourselves by improving experimental techniques?

Also the examples they give are just straight up wrong.

> Some are inherent in the mathematical formulation of the theory, such as the assumption in Isaac Newton’s theory that the masses of gravitating bodies are located at their centres.

That isn't an assumption of the theory at all. It can be proven with simple Calculus that if you have a sphere of matter, then the cumulative newtonian gravitational force of all points of the sphere is the exact same as if it had all its mass in its center point. It's a by product, not an assumption.

> Others are necessary to simplify calculations, such as the assumption that in experimental studies of the electromagnetic force, the effects of other forces (such as gravity) can be safely ignored. This means that the resulting predictions are never derived directly from the theory itself, but rather from the theory as adapted by one or more ‘auxiliary’ hypotheses. If these predictions are then falsified, it’s never clear what’s gone wrong. It might be that the theory is indeed false, but it could be that one or more of the auxiliary hypotheses is invalid: the evidence can’t tell us which.

Yes, it can be safely ignored. The ratio between the electric force and gravitional force of two electrons is 4.17e ×10^42 (meaning the electric force is 4170000000000000000000000000000000000000000 times stronger than their gravity). Well beyond any experimental error that we can detect. And since forces are additive, if you wanted to add in gravity, then you could just add the force to the equation (but you're just practically adding zero). But since it's so small compared to the electric force and you wouldn't be able to detect it within error, it is very very safe to assume the gravitional forces can be neglected when trying to prove electric theories in subatomic particles. If there is a big enough discrepancy between the predictions of electric forces, then it is very clear it isnt your neglect of gravity. It is something wrong with your understanding of electricity. (This is actually another good point. We can't make experiments for Quantum gravity yet because we don't have the equipment to detect such a small force. Does mean the theory is bad science? Not at all.) The inverse of this is with measuring gravity in Cosmology: we can safely assume the electrical force acting between two galaxies is negligible compared to their gravitional force and any expirmental discrepancies would be too large to be caused by their electrical force. Physicists make approximations all the time, but that doesn't mean they are doing it willy-nilly.

The theory of QM has very different philosophical approaches to understanding what a probability wave means and how observation collapses it into a particle. It's very hard to truly falsify any of them, but you would be laughed at by saying the theory is bad science because we lack the fundamental understanding of its implications.

Falsification is just when some other statement incompatible with a theory is "accepted". If you choose not to accept it again then the falsification doesn't occur. A falsification is also a single instance you are confident in. One experiment! If you do another experiment it's not a re-litigation of the previous falsification at time 1, it's actually just another falsification at time 2. You might choose not to accept Experiment 1s results for some reason, but Experiment 2 could still stand. You just need one instance you accept to falsify a theory.

To verify a theory you need to prove infinite cases

Im currently reading Beyond Good and Evil by Nietsche it is a very good book.Only 2 pages in and I learned quite a bit about the soul,ego and soon religion I took a better approach to reading it.Before I simply read it as any other fictional book but I was wrong.Even two sentences of text can reveal so much knowledge that it can be overwhelming. So i take my reading paragraph per paragraph underlining any words or concepts I'm not aware of and looking them out.

Atm I realize I am still uneducated about religion so I am watching Lets talk about Religion YT channel to catch up on it.

I have trouble fully supporting this one.

I feel it's a blanket statement, which rarely covers all cases. I would not consider myself to be one that fits, but I do think many may fit the mold.

For a little more context, I grew up with no restrictions. A dysfunctional family riddled with addiction and abandonment, topped off with a few forms of abuse.

I remember my childhood fairly vividly, many memories from 3-4 years old and on. I wouldn't consider all of the memories accurate, but there are times and people that really stand out, both good and bad.

In retrospect, these key moments from an early age up through my late teens helped form my sense of me. It wasn't a single rebellion period, simply because there was nothing to rebel against. I was experimenting with the world before I could even process the outcome of my actions.

A lot of the people who were bad influences and heavily involved in my younger years (pre 12) are not fairing so well in life. Neither is my younger sibling who I tried my best to watch after as long as I possibly could, but that's currently on the up I hope.

This subject is difficult to me, because I tend to put periods and experiences throughout life under a microscope. I analyze a lot of what I went through, how it made me feel, and how things could be different. I also know that not everything needs to change or could be changed, but embracing and remembering has done well for me.

That process hasn't stopped. It's become more of how I approach everything. My opinions of the past are not static, they change with every new experience I find relatable. Sometimes they are reinforced, other times I'm given a new way to think about the situation.

The thing is, there are so few constants in life. Life is also so unique, yet similar. We seem to want to find patterns that hold true for all, but lack the formulas for really proving it.

I think constantly having an open mind and making sense of it is essential to growth. I do not know that you're suggesting this, but I do not think there should be a static point. These opinions can be firm, but not firm to the extent they cannot be changed. I am currently an adult, and while I identify with a lot of my past, it is not me. I have learned, I have become better, I have also become worse. The thing is, I am not the current me. I am the future me, with past me as a reference point.

Now I guess tying in to what I take from your comment - I'd argue puberty isn't THE defining point. Maybe it is for some, maybe it's the spark. I personally am just now learning who my parents are, so I do not have much of an identity with either. That said, the very young experiences with extended family were massive.

I recently connected with an aunt that used to watch me sporadically when I was 4-6. Since then I've seen her twice, the most recent being 15 years ago. It was surreal finally getting to know her better - my sense of her was extremely limited. I could tell you everything about her house, her children, what I did there, but I couldn't tell you much of what I remember about her. I know I didn't have negative feelings, but I couldn't put a finger on the positive.

Seeing her after so much time had passed was surreal. She understood a lot of what I had to say, and I saw similarities in things like her reactions and temperament. We identified with one another.

I attribute myself to the experiences like the short few years of being babysit by her. I'm not implying she is the sole reason, I have countless others that stand out in my youth. My time alone was equally beneficial with simply thinking - I grew up with a lot of thinking, it was the only way to justify my existence at times.

Sorry if I went off a bit too much. More than willing to keep this train going, if the opportunity presents itself. This year has been very profound for me, but I'm struggling to find more outlets to be heard and also hear. I appreciate the extra thought!

It does need to generalize because if this single counter example was flawed then it completely invalidates the whole thing. You need to be sure that this single counter example is actually valid and that if you repeated it ad infinitum you would get the same result again and again and again which you can't be sure of. There maybe an irrelevant reason why thos counter example occurred. I think there is a very well known example that I can't remember specifically which is how the orbit of some planet in the solar system actually "falsified" Newtonian mechanics, however what was not taken into account was another body affecting the orbit of that planet which skewed the result, so it appeared to falsify it when it didn't. Now surely for every event of falsification, to be one hundred percent sure you are falsifying what you think you are, you need to rule out every single one of these alternative explanations.

i think ultimately, you have to verify that your falsification is valid.

Not quite, since it doesn't need to generalize, one counter example is enough. You need to be confident in just one counterexample.

In the verification scheme, you can't ever be confident because you could never test all examples ever.

In one case (falsification) confidence is at least possible, and in the other, it isn't—which makes one of them strictly better

>But as soon as you get one you're confident in, it's kinda falsified for good.

But then how do you know you can be confident. This brings in the same circular issues you criticised induction as having... because it is induction.

Ah yeah, in which case you recant that falsification. But as soon as you get one you're confident in, it's kinda falsified for good.

Whereas if you try verifying — you'll never know, since you can't test every instance in space in time.