Life on Earth older than thought? [Archive]

Skybird

05-20-09, 06:07 PM

Entropy and thermodynamics are paradigms, or better: theories or theoretical constructions. They make sense in that they match a lot of observation data, and are capable to bring new observations into an order that matches their claim. Nevertheless they are just theories. Like anything else in sciences is just subjective observation, and theory.

A responsible scientist does not claim to know the ultimate truth, but he will always say: "our current model explains it like this, and this makes sense according to what we know so far, because..." Only religious zealots and narcisstic missionaries - or stupid scientists - claim to have ultimate explanations that will not see any further alteration in the future.

Hell, even Hawking has given up some years ago his life-long claim that the world could be explained in one final, ultimate formula or model. It seems he made the step from knowledge to wisdom.

Only wisdom can serve as an antidot to being stupid, while most people in responsible positions, who mess up the world and peoples' lives, are very knowing people indeed. It seems that knowledge alone is just a necessary but no adequate and sufficient condition to act intelligently. You can know a lot - and still be stupid.

Or as Spock put it in ST6: "Logic is the beginning of wisdom - not it's end." :yeah:

Letum

05-20-09, 07:03 PM

Entropy and thermodynamics are paradigms[...]

Don't you mean: "Skybird's current model explains entropy and
thermodynamics as paradigms", or don't you apply the same
standards to your meta-knowledge as you do to your knowledge?

(ed: not that I disagree with much of your above post, although I am a
little confused as to why you bought such issues up here)

Aramike

05-20-09, 08:14 PM

Entropy and thermodynamics are paradigms, or better: theories or theoretical constructions. They make sense in that they match a lot of observation data, and are capable to bring new observations into an order that matches their claim. Nevertheless they are just theories. Like anything else in sciences is just subjective observation, and theory. Actually, entropy with regards to thermodynamics is not a theory - its a physical law of nature. For it to be untrue, nature itself would have to change, whereas there would then be a new truth. This is often known as a "vacuum".A responsible scientist does not claim to know the ultimate truth, but he will always say: "our current model explains it like this, and this makes sense according to what we know so far, because..." Only religious zealots and narcisstic missionaries - or stupid scientists - claim to have ultimate explanations that will not see any further alteration in the future.You couldn't be more wrong. A responsible scientist claims to know the truth when he does indeed know the truth. Scientific truths are what enables technology to expand. For instance, it is a scientific truth that splitting the atom releases immense energy. It is a scientific truth that the earth is round.

There is a clear difference between a "theory" and a "law". A theory is predictive, whereas a law is an expression that is always true under the same conditions.

Letum

05-21-09, 04:52 AM

That is a little blunt Armike.
Newtonian physics used to be the very definition of a scientific truth, a
universal, unchanging law that allowed technology to expand and new
inventions to be made.
Einstein pissed all over that and showed the floors and inconsistencies in
Newtonian physics. What we thought where laws, where no longer.

It is foolish to claim to know any unchanging and universal truth.

I, however, disagree with Skybird on a further point. Whilst SB believes that
any given theory is just a model used to explain and predict and can not
possibly contain any truth value about the external universe, I believe that
theories and ideas can be relatively good or relatively bad descriptions of
the actual external universe based on their coherency, which I believe is a
reliable indicator how how the universe fits as it is impossible to have
an incoherent external world.

i hope SB will excuse my paraphrasing.

Skybird

05-21-09, 05:26 AM

Don't you mean: "Skybird's current model explains entropy and
thermodynamics as paradigms", or don't you apply the same
standards to your meta-knowledge as you do to your knowledge?

(ed: not that I disagree with much of your above post, although I am a
little confused as to why you bought such issues up here)

What's the word surgery about here? Practically all theoretical statements of sciences are thought models and theories only, no ultimate truths and final answers, and where they form an influencing meta-theory, we call them a paradigm. Theories come and go, some stay long, others not as long, some get abandoned and given up, others get complemented. But always it is human mind's created order of thoughts that decides where we put that new observation that we just made. and this case of observation and this artificial order we created decides on our efforts how to make new observations.

Or to put it more poetically: all science is observations only that dances and plays with human mind.

You just said it yourself, Letum, in your reply to Aramike. You talked of what you believe theories are. Which is another theory - about theories.

I am not minimizing the value of theories in principle. I am all for making pragmatic use of them, to do things that are in our reach to do, and to think thoughts we are able to think. But a theory is nothing more than that, a theory. There are no nature's laws - just our assumptions about nature having this or that regularity. And that again is a theory, based on many observations.

Just too take it as granted that such theories are so unlimited and infinite in validity that they embrace all universe although we know close to nothing about this universe - that is a bit too much. With nature's laws it could very well be that we find out one day that it is with many of them like it is with Newtonian physics and quantum, physics: the one model works wonders to explain Pool, the other is useless. The latter theory is great according to our current standard of knowledge to explain subnuclear events, Newton sucks.

We live on just one little planet, and have thrown a couple of little toys into the air close to us. Let's not antropomorphise the rest of the universe altogether, and let's not fantasize that we really do any form of space travel really worth to be called that.

Most intelligent life out there probably will be eons older, than we are. Most of these intelligences will be so much superior in intelligence that we probably will be unable to even recognize them as what they are: intelligence, as long as they do not help us to recognize them. Like we are also unable to recognize an intelligence that is too much inferior to us. And if we have this problem of not recognizing inferior intelligence, why do we assume that other superior intelligences do not have the same problem in recognizing us? For all the others out there, "universe" will be something very different than for us. And the superior intelligences there are, probably are capable of means and abilities that for us border to pure magic. Astronomy tells us we live in those 10% of this galaxy's volume that are the youngest part of this galaxy. That means 90% of solar systems in this galaxy are much older than Earth. If anybody has dreams about us meeting others on a basis of same eye level or missionary superiority, Star Trek style, you better think twice. for that reason I have said farewell to the idea to send drones into space and trying to make active contact, and want passive listening being done only. Since most of those out there already are superior to us, what makes us assuming that they all are necessarily friendly? The example of human societies on planet Earth?

Letum

05-21-09, 05:44 AM

Skybird

05-21-09, 06:06 AM

Your arguing for the points where I do agree with you!

In the post I quoted I was causing you of inconsistency in not applying the
same ideas about theories and knowledge to your knowledge and theories
about theories and knowledge.

Haven't I? ;) Isn't that an obvious implication from the first to the last sentence?

Again, I think this is word-picking only.

At the end I even described that I recently have changed one of my former opinions about alien contact. Isn't that illustrating the changing the nature of theories? I could add that I also changed my mind regarding the "originality" of alien life out there, and that I now see good argument to assume that most surviving intelligence out there maybe is not bound anymore to the natural form that once has formed up this intelligence, but into forms built by these earlier lifeforms, that make it more survivable, robust and less vulnerable to the passing of time, like man has begun to chnage his genes, and maybe will be successful to transfer his mind into machines in a still far away future. Maybe most intelligence out there is what we would call - machine-based intelligence. That scenario makes more sense than one may imagine at the first thought about it. True, that is theory, but one I form as best as I can on basis of what I see as reasonable. Ten years ago, i prioritised an assumed correlation between intelligence and higher civilisation, and that civilisation correlates with peacefulness. I have given up that thought, it just does not make much sense. It was no solid theory, but random belief only, or unfoundable wishful thinking.

Letum

05-21-09, 06:32 AM

You misunderstand me.
I am not saying your non-meta ideas are inflexible.

I will try to explain more carefully...

Do you think it is the case that all theories and ideas are models for
explanation only and can not be known to be true facts about the world?

Skybird

05-21-09, 07:14 AM

Yes. So does a number of other thinkling schools and xyz-isms as well, Radical Constructivism maybe one of the most prominent here.

I think I understood you correctly, I just think that it is a discussion about almost nothing. If you plan to illustrate to show me that my thoughts regarding theory also are just a theory, let's call it Skybirdianism, you must not, for I know that. The only question is if there is a theory that makes more sense than mine, or not.

Letum

05-21-09, 08:46 AM

[...] The only question is if there is a theory that makes more sense than mine, or not.

There is the problem. If you are not assigning any truth values to
Skybirdianism, then what does it matter if it makes more or less sense than
another theory?

Skybird

05-21-09, 09:38 AM

To find out how to come along in this life, and get along a way that hopefully is safer and more comfortable and less fearsome than others.

It's like with a boat whose captain got the order to sail to a distant point with some treacherous reef in the way. He must be careful, but no matter how careful he is, he never can gain an ultimate certainty:

He may get through, then all he knows is that the path he has chosen did work, but he does not know whether or not there is a shorter, safer passage, a more comfortable route available. All he knows is that he survived on the route he has choosen.

Or he sails into his doom, the reef damages and sinks his ship, and the captain looses crew, ship and his own life. then all he knows is that the course he has set did not pass beyond the obstacle. He does not know whether it did not fit by a huge or a small margin, and does not even know if there is any free passage through the reef at all. All he knows when dying is that the choice he made, did not earn him success.

Letum

05-21-09, 11:14 AM

Can not a idea that makes less sense than other ideas do all those things?

Skybird

05-21-09, 11:23 AM

Häh...?

Letum

05-21-09, 11:41 AM

What makes theories in Skybirdianism that make good sense better than ones
that make less sense if the one that make less sense is of more practical use?

Aramike

05-21-09, 12:04 PM

Letum

05-21-09, 12:09 PM

A change of one letter in one sentence of a law shows that it was neither
universal, completely true nor timeless.

Aramike

05-21-09, 12:29 PM

A change of one letter in one sentence of a law shows that it was neither
universal, completely true nor timeless.Umm, we're not talking about universal laws - we're talking about laws in a vacuum. (which means under specific conditions certain behaviors will always be the same).

And, you're inaccurate about changing one letter in a law changes the law. Many laws are reduced and simplified as better formulas are found, for instance. Also, many different sentences can be used to express the same thing, rendering that concept moot.

Newtonian Laws are still used today. His law of gravitation is accurate in a vacuum. Einstein's work on gravity wasn't so much the law - it was the theory of what gravity actually was, and whether or not there was an impact on photons and particles without mass. In other words, the laws describe gravity's effects, the theory is WHY those effects occur.

The law will ALWAYS be the same as the effects will always be the same under the same conditions. Laws do not change. We may learn more about other conditions, but that would merely ammend the law to include other conditions, and doing so in NO way invalidates the original law.

Also, Newton's laws of motion are still laws, and are unchanged.

Letum

05-21-09, 12:38 PM

Skybird

05-21-09, 01:10 PM

What makes theories in Skybirdianism that make good sense better than ones
that make less sense if the one that make less sense is of more practical use?
More word surgery? Will lead you nowhere, but anyhow:

What you say is no contradiction, since we tend to push those theories in science that are best suited to enable us to pragmatically carry on, both in preparing the next method of observation, and to supplemm ent our existing set of theories. These form our currently valid paradigm. Paradigms do not get revolted again that often. Maybe once every 50 years or so. In case of choice between two possible theories or answers, so the unwritten golden rule in science: choose the theory of the two that explains the same thing in the simplier way. No need to make things complicated when not gaining something from that. Chose the more complicated explanation when the simplier answers do not make sense or contradict known data.

and if all of a sudden you make a discovery or observation that violates all known stuff alltotgether, etheir burn the author on the stakes, or kick all old theory alltogether. :know:

You once said you find mindgames over words like this entertaining, and i replied I take not as much entertainment from them. I think it still is like this with us two. Forgive when I leave the train at the next station then. There is a long awaited DVD and a bottle of red vine waiting to be killed.

Aramike

05-21-09, 01:13 PM

Both Newtons laws of gravity and motion are wrong.
Most notable because they rely on his "gravitational aether", which is no
longer thought to exist and upon the speed of time being a constant, which it
isn't.Actually, they are not wrong, considering the vacuum of his postulations. In fact, agencies such as NASA still use his equations, as they are still considered scientific law.

What you're refering to is his THEORIES regarding motion and gravitation - not the laws. The laws describe WHAT happens under specific conditions, the theories deal with why.

I'm not going to debate with you whether or not accepted scientific terminology is correct until you show some credentials. Here's a few links I'd recommend checking out:

http://www.wilstar.com/theories.htm
http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm
http://science.kennesaw.edu/~rmatson/3380theory.html

Here's a great summary:A law generalizes a body of observations. At the time it is made, no exceptions have been found to a law. Scientific laws explain things, but they do not describe them. One way to tell a law and a theory apart is to ask if the description gives you a means to explain 'why'. No exceptions, for instance, have been found to Newton's Law of Gravity. Rather, there are conditions which his law doesn't explain which General Relativity is needed (this involves the subatomic level or infinate volumes/masses). As such, his law isn't incorrect - it descibes exactly what it does. However, under different conditions a different theory is needed (not a law, because the conditions themselves are theoretical).

Letum

05-21-09, 01:42 PM

Here's a great summary:No exceptions, for instance, have been found to Newton's Law of Gravity. Rather, there are conditions which his law doesn't explain which General Relativity is needed[...]

In all conditions special/general relativity is needed to produce an accurate
result. Newtonian laws may be excellent for approximations. in fact, the
approximations that Newtonian laws give are easily good enough for NASA to
use to send men to the moon etc. However, because the laws are false, they
produce errors. These errors do not become apparent until we look at the
very small or the very fast, but they are also present in all calculations.

The law of universal gravitation is a good example as it implies that gravity
acts instantly, which is not the case.
According to Newton, if the sun vanished, then the earth would instantly
begin to leave orbit. Our more advanced understanding of gravity, however,
tells us that earth would not stop orbiting the place where the sun was for
eight and one half minutes after the sun had vanished due to the speed
at which gravitational information travels.

Aramike

05-21-09, 02:53 PM

In all conditions special/general relativity is needed to produce an accurate
result. Newtonian laws may be excellent for approximations. in fact, the
approximations that Newtonian laws give are easily good enough for NASA to
use to send men to the moon etc. However, because the laws are false, they
produce errors. These errors do not become apparent until we look at the
very small or the very fast, but they are also present in all calculations.That's completely inaccurate. You're comparing theoretical physics to observational physics within specific conditions, which is apples and oranges.

However, if, as you say, in ALL conditions relativity is needed, than wouldn't relativity be an absolute truth (which I believe in our current vacuum of nature it is)? This brings us full circle.

Here, I'll simplify: If one were to make the statement that, on Earth, any body with mass thrown up with less than escape velocity, discounting forces other than gravity acting upon it, it will return to the Earth (what goes up, must come down), that would be a law as the statement will be accurate 100% of the time.

Now, if one were to make the statement explaining WHY this happens, that would be a theory.

Letum

05-21-09, 03:17 PM

However, if, as you say, in ALL conditions relativity is needed, than wouldn't relativity be an absolute truth (which I believe in our current vacuum of nature it is)? This brings us full circle.

No.
It is perfectly possible that one day we will find an error in GR.
It can't be a law one day, but not the next.

...on Earth, any body with mass thrown up with less than escape velocity, discounting forces other than gravity acting upon it, it will return to the Earth (what goes up, must come down), that would be a law as the statement will be accurate 100% of the time.That would be accurate so far as we know.

However, that is not the point. The point is that it is possible that one day
we will discover data that will force us to revise the "what goes up, must
come down" law. Just because we have not found any data to contradict it
so far, does not mean we never will. We can't say that we know without
doubt.

Bertrand Russell's chicken got fed at sunrise all it's life. It decided that it
was a true law that when the sun rises, food came. It was true 100% of
the time. No data the chicken collected ever contradicted that law.
Then one day the farmer broke the chicken's neck instead of feeding it.
As Russell said, "more refined views as to the uniformity of nature would
have been useful to the chicken".

Truths can not be found through induction.

Ed: here you go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction

Skybird

05-21-09, 04:30 PM

Reminds a bit of the basis of classical test theory in statistics, that assumes - and demands - an almost infinite number of case studies as a basis for it'S theoretical claims. But when doing statistic or testing examinations, you simply never have an infinte number of case studies. you even do not have an infinite number of testing population from which to randomly select a representative sample for your test battery.

In statistics and test theory, that is a very huge problem.

Never heared of that Russel chicken before. But the story made me burst with laughter. For that I spend one round of free beer.

Aramike

05-21-09, 04:47 PM

No.
It is perfectly possible that one day we will find an error in GR.
It can't be a law one day, but not the next.Which is why relativity is a theory and not a law.That would be accurate so far as we know.

However, that is not the point. The point is that it is possible that one day
we will discover data that will force us to revise the "what goes up, must
come down" law. If that day comes, it would be indicative of a change in the vacuum in which the law exists. In other words, what goes up will always come down as the law states. Should that change, the conditions will have changed, therefore the law wouldn't apply.

This is pretty simple stuff.

Letum

05-21-09, 05:04 PM

Someone help me out here....Hume...anyone?

Ok Aramike, you think that "what goes up, must come down" is a law because
it has always happened in the past, but how does your past observation tell
you about what will happen in the future?

Russell's chicken thought it could learn laws by observing data in the past and
present to make a law that would be true for the future and so do you.

Just as the chicken was surprised when it's neck was broken, for all you know
you will be surprised when under the same circumstances, without any change
in your vacuum, you throw up a tennis ball and then the tennis ball vanishes
and you turn into a frog.

As the chicken had to change it's law from "I get fed every sunrise" to "I get
fed every sunrise, except when I get my neck broken"; you will have to change
your law to involve vanishing masses and frogs.

A law that has to change can't have been right in the first place and we have no
way of knowing that any given law won't be forced to change because inductive
reasoning does not tell us about the future.

Just because your "law" has never been wrong before, doesn't mean it
won't be wrong tomorrow.

Get a more refined views as to the uniformity of nature!

Aramike

05-22-09, 12:29 AM

Someone help me out here....Hume...anyone?I don't see anyone coming to your rescue because the concept of a scientific law is very simplistic in its definition.Ok Aramike, you think that "what goes up, must come down" is a law because
it has always happened in the past, but how does your past observation tell
you about what will happen in the future?The past observation tells me that an object will always "come down" because the THEORIES predicting the occurence also agree. Should this change, than the conditions will also have changed, rendering the law irrelevent.

But seriously, are you trying to postulate the "what comes up must come down" may actually just suddenly change? If so, the concept is no more sophisticated than a simple "God-done-it". If the law were to change, than the facts that were the basis of the law will have changed as well, thusly rendering the law invalid.

The LAW is CONDITIONAL - all things being exactly as they are now, what goes up must come down. Should that change, the conditions must also change. This is the key to the rules to logic (something cannot both exist and not exist at the same time).

Think about it: should the law in question change, would it be smart to simply say "just because" or rather to look into WHY it changed, thereby changing the conditions.

Futhermore, you have yet to show a single law that has mysteriously just changed because "goddidit" rather than having its conditions redefined.

I posit that you're fighting a losing battle, versus both semantics and the scientific method, because you're too stubborn to acknowledge what is fact. All things being equal, you'll continue to do so. Should you change your perspective, a condition will have changed rendering that law irrelevent.

Although that law may be short term, it will be 100% (as such be a law) as your position will not change unless some other condition forces it to.3

To simplify it further (which I don't believe I should have to do as I believe that you're intentionally dodging the logic), let's say that using my legs and feet in a certain matter over a specific terrain in certain conditions causes me to walk. We'll call it the Law of Walking. Should my using the same appendages in the same manner result in a different result, would not the conditions have changed, meaning the Walking Law is irrelevent?

This is a question of semantics and logic. If we were to throw those out in favor of a "we never know anything" philosophy, why not just abandon science altogether?

There's a reason renowned scientists worldwide (smarter than both you and I) use scientific terminology precisely along with the scientific method.

porphy

05-22-09, 04:32 AM

A few observations on my part. I think the discussion is very interesting. I'm not here to help anyone out, but more to give my own view of the questions involved, which admittedly are complex and have entertained very much the best minds for a very long time. :)

If a natural law, formulated by science, is conditional in the way Aramike describes, that is saying. When ever the law doesn't apply to observations, changing conditions will explain this. (if not some other kind of error is found). Even history is called in to maintain this view, and the question is if there is, so far any example that contradicts this formulation.
This sounds, in itself, very much like a law like prediction based on observation and induction to me. Which means the discussion between Letum and Aramike haven't moved an inch, as Letum will maintain that you can't formulate laws based on empirical results and induction.
There is no way to logically exlude future cases where the law would not agree with the observations. That is a logical feature. What science have formulated as laws and how these have changed or not, is an historical and therefore empirical question, which will have to follow rules of language and logic as well. You can't really point to acctual history in order to strenghten or weaken a logical point.

Another way is the semantical part of it. It sounds as if conditional laws are made foolproof by a move in language. The law can't be wrong, as the conditions would have changed. I think Sir Karl Popper would have asked, is a scientific law and its theory backed up with this argument acctually possible to falsify? Any results that would show the law wrong, would be explained by changing conditions. But isn't this simply a way of trying to keep the concept of law as a kind of holy concept for science? The law was never wrong, beacuse now the conditions have changed. Or maybe the theory was wrong, but not the law, no not he law. Should conditions change back to the original, or we findt he correct theory, the law is still true. Of course, this is quite obvious, but is this a good stance in connection with the idea that science when formulating a natural law is based on empircal and fully testable (verification and falsification) work? It seems to me that the natural law risks to fall outside science this way.

However, it seems to me to be a good and proper way to do science as Aramike describes the situation. Of course one would look into the conditions, as they are what is supposed to explain and cause any law like observations. Anything else would be to give up scientific work as the idea of empirical research.
It might even be good reasons, pragmatically speaking for a concept of law in this "supra science" way. Scientist might work very well when using it.
It's like when Einstein maintained that some parts of what physics is, which he thought was given up in quantumm mechanis, was very important because those parts were the very thing that had made physics make progress. One of them was that it is possible to formulate fully objective and true laws of nature. Notice though, that Einstein, when discussing and arguing for the nature of scientific work, and natural law, didn't rely on how the concept of law works in science, but from a kind of outside position. This concept of natural law was the one that scientist had used during all the years, and it was crucial to keep it for future progress.
Taking one step back, this in turn makes it fulle possible that his argument can be proven wrong, even from a pragmatic point of view. Scientific progress might not at all have been that strongly connected to the idea of formulating objective laws of nature. Now, is the last sentence a point of logic or open to actual empirical research?

Ok, my thoughts of the day. I will now proceed to rock climbing again, where it holds very true, unfortunatly, that everthing that goes up, must come down....:D

cheers porphy

Letum

05-22-09, 05:12 AM

The past observation tells me that an object will always "come down" because the THEORIES predicting the occurence also agree.

The chicken had THEORIES predicting the occurrence of food at sunrise
that agreed with it's law about food at sunrise. It's law was still wrong.

Should this change, than the conditions will also have changed, rendering the law irrelevant.

There was no change in the condition of the chicken's world when it's neck
get wrung. It was always going to happen.

But seriously, are you trying to postulate the "what comes up must come down" may actually just suddenly change? If so, the concept is no more sophisticated than a simple "God-done-it". If the law were to change, than the facts that were the basis of the law will have changed as well, thusly rendering the law invalid.

There might be a 50/50 chance that what goes up sometimes keeps going
up. Just because you flip a coin 10 billion times and get heads, it doesn't
mean you won't get tails the next time. We can't tell.
No change is required, 50/50 chance that what goes up sometimes keeps
going up might have been true for all eternity, we just have been unlucky
not to observe it yet.
How ever unlikely this it, we can't be 100% sure it is not the case.

The LAW is CONDITIONAL - all things being exactly as they are now, what goes up must come down. Should that change, the conditions must also change. This is the key to the rules to logic (something cannot both exist and not exist at the same time).

I'm going to repeat my self here because you consistently fail to show any
serious understanding of the problem's of induction (did you read the wiki
link?).
If the starting conditions in the world are:
"what goes up must come down, but 0.0000[...]000001% of the time it will
keep going up "
And we observe billions of times that things that go up, come down and
then decide on the law:
"what goes up must come down"

Our law is wrong because there is a non zero chance that what goes up
won't come down without any change in the conditions we are
observing.

...let's say that using my legs and feet in a certain matter over a specific terrain in certain conditions causes me to walk. We'll call it the Law of Walking. Should my using the same appendages in the same manner result in a different result, would not the conditions have changed, meaning the Walking Law is irrelevant?

Yes, but if the conditions stayed the same and something other than
walking happened, the law must be wrong.

This is a question of semantics and logic. If we were to throw those out in favor of a "we never know anything" philosophy, why not just abandon science altogether?

We can still keep science whilst abandoning the idea that we can find
truths through induction. As porphy mentioned, K.Popper has a very neat
solution that allows us to create laws without claiming they are true.
I think I have mentioned elsewhere that I am a big fan of Popper and I think
he is vastly under rated.

Letum

05-22-09, 05:28 AM

If a natural law, formulated by science, is conditional in the way Aramike describes, that is saying. When ever the law doesn't apply to observations, changing conditions will explain this. (if not some other kind of error is found). Even history is called in to maintain this view, and the question is if there is, so far any example that contradicts this formulation.
This sounds, in itself, very much like a law like prediction based on observation and induction to me.

Whats more, it is a tautology, as you say Popper may have pointed out,
as there is no possible falsification if any data that does not follow the law
can be explained by Aramike as a change in conditions.

...Letum will maintain that you can't formulate laws based on empirical results and induction.

You are right about induction, but I do think you can base laws on empirical
results, provided that you have an infinite amount of results from every
possible time.
However, with a little Cartesian doubt, I don't think we can collect any results, let alone an
infinite set, but that's a whole new kettle of fish.

Aramike

05-22-09, 08:07 AM

We're going in circles. The bottom line is that science agrees with me. But here's a fun one:There might be a 50/50 chance that what goes up sometimes keeps going
up. Just because you flip a coin 10 billion times and get heads, it doesn't
mean you won't get tails the next time. We can't tell.
No change is required, 50/50 chance that what goes up sometimes keeps
going up might have been true for all eternity, we just have been unlucky
not to observe it yet.
How ever unlikely this it, we can't be 100% sure it is not the case.There is 100% no chance that something, under the same conditions, will keep going up. If so, then the conditions (gravity attracting mass) will have changed to allow that single object to keep going up, thusly invalidating the law in that circumstance.

There is no doubt that there is the phenomenom of a scientific law. It is a term used daily by scientists worldwide. The idea that something may just keep going up despite known conditions is preposterous. One doesn't need an infinite number of results to prove a scientific concept - all that is needed is a consistant, predictable result. In the case of invalidating the law of something going up and coming down, the burden of proof lies with the person making the unobservable claim (that something may keep going up).

Letum

05-22-09, 08:56 AM

[...]all that is needed is a consistant, predictable result.

Like the constant, predictable result the chicken had?

ed: also, it is ridiculous to say that 'science agrees' with you.
The induction problem has been one of the most hotly debated issues
in meta-science since the mid 1700s and continues to be so. No
consensus has been reached at all.

porphy

05-22-09, 10:32 AM

We're going in circles. The bottom line is that science agrees with me. I don't think scientists as a whole agrees with you. Most scientists I have talked to on the very issue clearly favour a popperian approach. They do think his critique against inductive knowledge do point out the logical faults in this kind of reasoning. Maybe scientist, few or many, work on a daily basis with this approach of yours, that is another thing, that does not mean they are right about the justification of the concept, or that their results when formulating law like expressions automatically is a natural law in the sense you maintain.

But here's a fun one:There is 100% no chance that something, under the same conditions, will keep going up. If so, then the conditions (gravity attracting mass) will have changed to allow that single object to keep going up, thusly invalidating the law in that circumstance.That really is a non convincing example Aramike. All that is concluded is arrived at from the very idea that we do know the natural law in question to be true, absolutely true under the conditions stated. The discussion is about if this very idea about natural law can be maintained, and still be part of science as based on inductive empirical findings and testable results contained in a theory possible to falsify.

This theme is a quite old question by now, but still very important, and it is a centre piece of classical philosophy of science. The idea of absolute truths as part of science, or that absolute true natural laws would be the crowning hallmark of scientific work has had it's fair share of critique since the early nineteenth centaury. (Just have a look at positivism, conventionalism, logical empiricism, critical rationalism etc. All these "isms" also have had prominent scientists in their ranks as well, not that this concludes what is correct in a straight forward way.)
I would say it is very uncommon to find the idea of science arriving at absolute true natural laws these days, especially when defended by conditional circumstances the way it is presented here. It is probably because it can't be maintained with any convincing argument.

There is no doubt that there is the phenomenom of a scientific law. It is a term used daily by scientists worldwide. The idea that something may just keep going up despite known conditions is preposterous. One doesn't need an infinite number of results to prove a scientific concept - all that is needed is a consistant, predictable result. In the case of invalidating the law of something going up and coming down, the burden of proof lies with the person making the unobservable claim (that something may keep going up).
Yes, the phenomenon of natural law exists, but you describe it as something which can be found and absolutely verified through simply observing how science works when formulating said laws. Yes scientist use the term of natural law everyday, together with thousands of other terms, but do they use the term the way you say?
Most people that have looked into this question would say that natural law in that sense is metaphysics, as it can't in itself be part of a science confined to empirical research, inductive logic and testing.

I don't think this means that scientist should throw out the concept of natural law, but maybe it is as Popper once said, there is good metaphysics in science and bad metaphysics, good metaphysical statements, or even full research programs, can be transformed to or contain real scientific problems, which can give us scientific knowledge and theories that can be tested further, if needed. But the metaphysical concept can't by some magic guarantee scientific truth. If one follows Poppers line of thought, any science that claim absolute truth, even when it comes to natural law, is simply no science, or one have misunderstood the nature of science.

To me it seems like your finishing lines of the last paragraph is much more in line with the popperian idea, but you prefer to pass the burden of proof to anyone disputing or doubting the absolute truth of the natural law in question. But this can't be right, as the question is not about if things do continue up or not, but what grounds we have to claim the concept of natural law as expressing something absolutely true. This is not the same thing as discussing if things do fall or not.
I don't doubt the natural law in question, but I can't see that science can have a concept about natural law that will not in itself contain the possibility of being proved wrong. And I can't see that I should need to put forward examples of phenomenon that invalidates the law in order to come to the conclusion that this idea of natural law rests on shaky grounds when it comes to its rational and logical justification. If the concept of natural law is supposed to be scientifically justified and mean anything clear, it needs to be possible to prove it wrong, but not necessarily proven wrong. You want the latter from those who oppose this idea of absolute natural law, but deny the first by your reasoning about natural law under specified conditions. So how is one supposed to show a counter example if your conclusion in advance is, that as things now continue upwards, conditions have changed, and we have a new formulation of true law under different conditions?

When you complain about preposterous claims, it seems more like a fall back on some kind of common sense and well tried experience, which in a way is fine, but it will not prove your stance about natural law in science, as science is mostly thought of as the institution that test the validity of knowledge derived from common sense and everyday experience.

By the way, I did fall down when rock climbing, as expected and predicted, both by science and by me, but I don't take that as a reason for science as legitimately incorporating a concept about absolute natural laws. If I would have continued up though, I would have been surprised indeed and I very much would like to know why this happened. But I would certainly not say: that was weird, but it's still good to know that science still always operates with and formulates fully true natural laws, regardless of what my findings about the conditions for this incident shows. :yep:

Time for coffee!

cheers Porphy

Letum

05-22-09, 11:07 AM

Most scientists I have talked to on the very issue clearly favour a popperian approach.

:o They do!?
We need more Swedish scientists!

Most I have talked to are old school positivists when pushed on the matter.
I suspect it's more to do with lack of interest in the subject, rather than
anything so quaint as genuine positivism, not that it doen't still exist.

I have always been left with the impression that science has never really
taken Popper seriously on board, which I think is a shame.

porphy

05-22-09, 11:21 AM

:o They do!?
We need more Swedish scientists!

Most I have talked to are old school positivists when pushed on the matter.
I suspect it's more to do with lack of interest in the subject, rather than
anything so quaint as genuine positivism, not that it doen't still exist.

I have always been left with the impression that science has never really
taken Popper seriously on board, which I think is a shame.

You might be right about the "pushed on the matter". I'm not sure though if they go popperian when pushed, or positivist when pushed...:)

In my line of work I mostly meet scientists with a philosophical and historical interest in science, so that might be part of the explanation for them finding Popper a good choice.

Of course the problems in philosophy of science doesn't end with Popper. Maybe Wittgenstein was right when saying something like: "When you do philosophy, you run into philosophical problems." That probably goes also for anyone trying to account for science, natural law, knowledge and truth. ;)

cheers Porphy

Letum

05-22-09, 11:47 AM

porphy

05-22-09, 12:40 PM

I would have expected Wittgenstein to say "When you do philosophy, you run
into lingual problems.", which is why I don't get on with him very well.

It seams clear to be that meaning precedes language, but there are one or
two people on this forum that seam to agree with Wittgenstein, much to my annoyance.

Sorry if I should annoy you. ;) The meaning of the phrase is indeed more like the variation you gave, as Wittgenstein vehemently denied the existence of any real philosophical problems. But I would not describe him as saying that philosophy is only a semantic problem or a matter of hopeless work with definitions, where one should do science instead. It's more like you come to and are drawn into problems in language in another way than with a scientific problem, therefore the solution is not like in science or scientific.
The idea with the original quote is more like, if you do philosophy as if it was a kind of science, you will certainly run into philosophical problems, as they only exist in that form with this attitude to philosophy. You will then often try to solve them as a scientific problem with theories and systems, and then fail or at least find yourself less than satisfied.

Popper famously said to Wittgenstein that there got to be at least one real philosophical problem, and that is if there are real philosophical problems or not. Needless to say their discussion didn't go much further after that! :DL

I'm not sure what to make of the idea that meaning precedes language, but I think that might need a new thread with its own topic!

Letum

05-22-09, 01:17 PM

I'm not sure what to make of the idea that meaning precedes language...

I think it was Russell that first said words to the effect of "meaning precedes
language", even tho he never got very involved in the linguistic/anti-linguistic
thing that went on in the UK all around him in his later years.

I think it is very self evident that you can have an idea before you have
the words to express it.
You can have a philosophical problem before you have words to describe it.

If someone tells me about problem A and I do not understand them, they
might tell me about it using different words. That does not mean they are
now talking about a different problem. The words come from the problem,
not the problem from the words.

Even problems like what does it mean to ask "is the king of France bald?"
can be solved by looking at the concepts behind the words as opposed to
the concepts that arise from the words.

It seams ridiculous to me that anyone could think that the words of a
problem happen before the concept, ideas or meaning of the problem.
So far as I can see, all problems are problems of ideas and concepts, not
of words and semantics. If you find a semantic problem it is most likely
because someone is doing a poor job of explaining the concept behind the
words they are getting tripped up over.

I'll go and see if I can dig up some quotes...

Skybird

05-22-09, 01:53 PM

That meaning precedes language, and only in this order, is a highyl questionable argument. From a psychological standpoint possibly as well well as a linguistical, language also influence meaning, and the options for us to create meaning. Language feeds back on thought, thought feeds back on language. Just compare wetsenr languages, and Chinese languages. I remember to have had a thread some longer time ago pointing at scientific research that shows that chinese and Westerners not only vaguels think in different patterns, but that the differences indeed cause different hardcoding of neurons inside the brain.

I must be a bit vague here, since I do not remember source and names anymore, and at that time just took a random interest in it. But it is in no contradiction to what I know in general on the matter, and even supports that. We know for sure that langauge habits chnage the brain on a hardware basis. Thus very different languages indeed can indicate different ways of thinking and perceiving the "world" indeed.

For us, only conceptions and ideas make any sense that could be expressed by the tools the languages we speak can express in words. the world for which we have no words, to us is very much a non-existing world. That's why some foreign cultural ideas and views of the world, from the Aborigines' dreamtime to Asian Chan are so extremely tough for us to adequately describe in words - and thus so many fail to really understand what they are about. We often enforce our own schemes and patterns on top of them instead, and then consider ourselves to have a full understanding of what the orginal ideas mean. but we just understand our schematic abstraction of them, which may - or may not have much to do with the original.

Meaning and language is less a philosophical but more or less a scientific problem.

I assume that the more data science produce on a given issue, the more related philosophical problems shift from the field of philosophy into the field of science, much like scinece already has made much of former relgious staements obsolete.

By that I do not wish to say that science will necessarily one day come up with ultimate answers to all unknown issues. Indeed, new scientific insight necessaarily seems to create new unknowns as well. But philosophy alone is just like playing solitaire. It doesn'T really lead you anywhere, ever. That'S why traditions like for example Zen completely skip it, bypass it, ignore it, prevent it, and dismiss theoretical teaching as misguiding, useless, and being an obstacle only. that'S what makes it for wetsern intellectualy so incredibly difficult to "handle/deal with/accept" it.

Letum

05-22-09, 02:04 PM

But philosophy alone is just like playing solitaire. It doesn'T really lead you anywhere, ever.

I contest that strongly.
It has lead many people many places, been the basis for governments, new
religions, new ways of thinking about science and life. It has spawned
countless works of literature, art and all manner of creative works.
All the science, math and historical studies are the result new philosophical
ideas bracing out into subjects that became independent.

Western philosophy may be out of the scope of religio-philosophical ideas like
zen, but zen if far from out of the reach of western philosophy. That is zen's
loss.

Meaning and language is less a philosophical but more or less a scientific problem.

Many would disagree with that, both in science and in phillosophy. It is certinaly no given.

porphy

05-22-09, 02:10 PM

I think it was Russell that first said words to the effect of "meaning precedes
language", even tho he never got very involved in the linguistic/anti-linguistic
thing that went on in the UK all around him in his later years.

I think it is very self evident that you can have an idea before you have
the words to express it.
You can have a philosophical problem before you have words to describe it.

If someone tells me about problem A and I do not understand them, they
might tell me about it using different words. That does not mean they are
now talking about a different problem. The words come from the problem,
not the problem from the words.

Even problems like what does it mean to ask "is the king of France bald?"
can be solved by looking at the concepts behind the words as opposed to
the concepts that arise from the words.

It seams ridiculous to me that anyone could think that the words of a
problem happen before the concept, ideas or meaning of the problem.
So far as I can see, all problems are problems of ideas and concepts, not
of words and semantics. If you find a semantic problem it is most likely
because someone is doing a poor job of explaining the concept behind the
words they are getting tripped up over.

I'll go and see if I can dig up some quotes...

I'm actually quite sure Wittgenstein would have thought your view very worthwhile, at least the last paragraph. He didn't like Russells take on meaning and language though. Russell also did admit that Wittgenstein in personal discussions destroyed his belief in what he set out to accomplish with in Principia Mathematica.

Edit: Myself I agree with the later sentences of yours, but I'm not sure it is self evident that I can have an idea, a philosophical problem without words that have meaning through language. Private language is much thought of as a strange idea. If different words does mean a different problem explained can't really be known in advance, but I agree that there is no rule saying that as soon you change a word, the problem will change. But sometimes I think this do happen, but not as a result of me simply using a different word, but possibly an inappropriate word.

One could understand a lot of what W was involved in as getting clear about our concepts, after stumbling around among our words. Hence the desire to get an overview, finding bedrock and let the fly out of the bottle.
It's has been quite common to read W as if use of words automatically gives them meaning, which of course is absurd. That would be a very simple theory of meaning, and a pretty bad one. Wittgenstein was very thorough when looking in to how we use some specific words and in what contexts, but that is not the same as putting forward a theory of meaning along the line, use is meaning, or some slogan like that.
As far as I know Wittgenstein showed very little interest in coming up with a theory of meaning, it is very common though that people conclude that they can show that this or that is his theory of meaning by showing bits and pieces of his writing. Such a view do neglect his persistent ideas about a new method of doing philosophy. The later Wittgenstein is still mostly engaged with the problem from his early (in)famous Tractaus, namely the limits of meaningful language, but one could understand his later work as if they really live up to the famous last paragraph in Tractatus, that is, what you can't say in a meaningful way, you have to be silent about. He really tries to avoid talking nonsense or using words in an idle way in his later writing.

I like to quote Arthur Eddington when he writes something like: What is an electron, really? The only answer to give, is that what an electron really is, is part of the ABC of physics.

The original question is pointed out to be idle. It tries to reach outside the limit of language, in this case scientific language. It's like hoping for a kind of short cut. But this phenomenon have counterparts in what we usually call everyday language as well, and many everyday examples look like they would have an answer in science, but they don't, because science as a practise rely on ordinary language as well, even if it's full of obscure definitions, symbols and logic, and technical words and concepts.

ok, enough, I'm rambling on... I'm no real expert on these things and now I'm writing off the top of my head about quite difficult things, but given a good and proper introduction to W I think you can find good stuff in his writings, if you are interested in concepts, ideas and language, without reducing it to semantics and words only!

cheers porphy

Skybird

05-22-09, 02:16 PM

I contest that strongly.
It has lead many people many places, been the basis for governments, new
religions, new ways of thinking about science and life. It has spawned
countless works of literature, art and all manner of creative works.
All the science, math and historical studies are the result new philosophical
ideas bracing out into subjects that became independent.

Western philosophy may be out of the scope of religio-philosophical ideas like
zen, but zen if far from out of the reach of western philosophy. That is zen's
loss.

Zen includes all that, and goes beyond it. No man has ever realised the true nature of man and found true freedom - by philosophising. Instead he formed argument pro and contra why this and that constructions of his ego and intellect shall be lablled that, or shall not. That creates conflict, of course. The stoic does so. The hedonist does so. But that is not the quality itself, just an imagination of it's description.

You probably know that story from Zen that the finger pointing at the moon is not the moon itself. What you do with all your clever mindgames is painting your nails with different colours and than arguing which one meets the looks of a hand and five finger more nice than others. the moon is just an imagination for you, since you do not care to raise your head and just look at it - you were too busy with painting your fingernails. ;) Because how should you ever find and understand the moon if your fingernails are not signal-coloured, and pointy?

I observed this tendency in you many times over the past years. It is not meant as a personal attack on you. I see it as an intellect that goes wild and does not know nor care when enough is enough.

You are a clever guy, Letum , I really think so although sometimes you killed my nerves with your hobby. But maybe you are too clever. You even remind me a bit of myself when I was around age 20, 22. But you are also an extreme theoretician. Leave the words and thoughts behind a bit. Take a breath. Perceive. Witness. Do not want to comment. Do not want to judge. Do not want not to want not. "Zen" - is just a word with three letters, nothing more. It means nothing, and therefore, it means everything. People are too obsessed with words. Especially if they promise the flavour of exotic places. That often ends with digestion problems, like your comments on Zen for example.

Aramike

05-22-09, 02:37 PM

This thread has certainly taken an interesting turn... :doh:

porphy

05-22-09, 02:58 PM

This thread has certainly taken an interesting turn... :doh:

Fantastic is it not? Just throw yourself back in to the vortex of the GT forum. :)

Letum

05-22-09, 04:25 PM

You are a clever guy, Letum , I really think so[...]You even remind me a bit of myself when I was around age 20, 22.
If your years had given you any advantage of wisdom, then you would
know how to avoid the impoliteness of patronizing people. I seam to
remember it is not the first time you have done this.

Your moon analogy is somewhat comparable to platonic idealism. It is
also wrong.
The only place truths (or Platonic Ideals) can exist is with in language as
truths, unlike moons, are not ontological entities. They do not exist in the
world interdependently of our own concepts or words, unless you wish to
invoke, like Plato, a world in which truths have ontological existence on a
par with moons.

Skybird

05-22-09, 05:47 PM

I was directly reacting to a very insightless comment by yours, Letum.

Despite that, you certainly may do or not do whatever you want, and can spend your times with your philosphy-juggling as well, if you want. But whether you like that or not, since this is a public talking, I will reply to you and tell you the things I said, and that your way will gain you more knowledge on mental constructs, but no wisdom and insight. You may call that patronising, if you want, but i do say these things I replied to you for good reasons. Without doubt you will continue on the way you already do, for you do have no choice, and maybe you even make a profession of it and write a famous book about it and build academic prestige by it, who knows - but that way one day it will leave you behind in the same status that it has found you in, and you will find that despite all your walking, your steps have not lead you from where you were. And I have seen quite some people that were in that psoition, and felt deeply desperate about that, causing their hearts suffering.

If that sounds patronising again, then I can'T help it, and still I speak not with that intention, but on the basis of not a small experience with many people over several years who did exactly the way you do - and found themselves with none of what they were searching for that way.

Your life, your choices, your responsibility, your consequences to face. Choose wisely.

:)

Letum

05-22-09, 07:14 PM

Fortunately, I am not searching for anything. I'm just taking a look at what
is out there. I shall carry on with my 'juggling' and you may carry on with
your mysticism for all the good it will do you.

As for a profession, famous book or academic prestige, all are far beyond
me. I failed two academic courses in philosophy and despite extensive
reading since, would fail a third if I took it. I am quite the amateur.

Skybird

05-23-09, 03:58 AM

As for a profession, famous book or academic prestige, all are far beyond
me. I failed two academic courses in philosophy and despite extensive
reading since, would fail a third if I took it. I am quite the amateur.
A question of standards to which you want to compare yourself. Sometimes I thought you seem to have memorised a lot of detailed specifics, but somehow lack a framework that puts them into context. On other occasions you showed an ability to compare things to each within one thematic context, but the insight in specific details was lagging behind.

That you say you had philosophy courses, does not surprise me, it meets my image of you perfectly. :D And yes indeed - really not wanting to patronise you - you remind me very much of myself back then, too. I was as "verkopft" (only translation the book gives is over-intellectual)back then, as you are. The cure for me was my mentor, who insisted on not separating martial arts and meditation but train me in both, and some years later the happy circumstance that my student job at a newspaper led me to those contacts that later ended in me starting to extensively travel, which for me meant to jump off a cliff and into the unnown - I was extremely anxious in the beginning, never having done anything riskful and dangerous all alone and in my very own responsibility. Until then I had lived safe and protected in the leap of my family, and the isolation and away-from-reality-environment of the theoretic academic routine, enjoying a student's easy-going life.

Move beyond your known frameworks. Accept the risk that the surprise maybe is not always a positive one. Both is part of life. Both brought me tears (rarely), and joy (mostly). Without it, I would still be living in a glass.

Whatever, good luck. ;)