Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
more about Science and Religion
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Scientific theories aren't phenomena. They are conceptual models of phenomena. They are ideas we have as to what we think is happening.
To be considered scientific they must have passed scientific standards, something that I think by definition cannot happen with no evidence.
That is your opinion. Empiricism ( of the instrumentalist variety) for want of a better term.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumentalism
In the philosophy of science, instrumentalism is the view that a concept or theory should be evaluated by how effectively it explains and predicts phenomena, as opposed to how accurately it describes objective reality.
Not all philosophies of science agree.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructive_empiricism
Constructive empiricism states that scientific theories are semantically literal, that they aim to be empirically adequate, and that their acceptance involves, as belief, only that they are empirically adequate. A theory is empirically adequate if and only if everything that it says about observable entities is true. A theory is semantically literal if and only if the language of the theory is interpreted in such a way that the claims of the theory are either true or false (as opposed to an instrumentalist reading).
And what is a "scientific standard"?- You observe a natural phenomena.
- You come up with an idea as to what is happening with this phenomena.
- At this point you have an idea as to what that phenomena is but this not a scientific theory because you haven't tested it to scientific standards and as such you can't say you have much confidence in the accuracy of this idea to explain the phenomena.
i.e. it is semantically literal but has yet to confirm empirical adequacy.[*]You then put your idea through the scientific process.
[*]If your idea survives you now have a scientific theory that you have much more confidence accurately explains the natural phenomena you were attempting to explain.
But you are saying Boyle's theory about air was not science until it was measured?
And so was Galileo's theory that the Earth moved not science until we measured the Earth moving? It happened to be true but it was not science? How about the general theory of Relativity or the Higge's Bozon. they are not science until we confirm they exist? We seem to be spending tens of billions on particle accelerators and spaceships and telescopes for all this "non science" don't we?
I'm not following how an idea could survived the scientific process yet have not had any confirmation, given the scientific process is about confirmation.
In your view science is only ultimately about confirming by measurement.
So what if the Higges Bozon or general relativity isn't confirmed or found to be wrong like Newton and others were found not to be right? Are they not science? we devote a lot of time in schools learning this "non science" don't we?"They" in that sentence are ideas explaining the phenomena, not the phenomena themselves. Phenomena are just stuff that happens, they don't require us to understand them or to measure them for them to happen (yes there is a slight fudge with that and quantum mechanics but lets leave that out for the moment). Lightening happens even if we think it is charge from rain drops or Thor throwing his hammer.
But if the explanation is semantically literal it has to be true or false!
Ideas that attempt to explain these phenomena (that was caused by charge from rain drops, that was caused by Thor throwing his happen) are not science unless they undergo some confirmation.
So the Higge's Bozon, general relativity, evolution and Newtonian gravity are not science? We seem to spend a lot of time on money on them and call them science.Think of it this way. A riot happens in north Dublin. Then a newspaper writes an article as to what happened. The article isn't the riot. The riot would have happened even if the newspaper article had never been written. And the facts of the riot are a particular way even if the newspaper article got all the facts completely wrong. The confidence in the accuracy of the newspaper article as an accurate representation of the riot increases the more fact checking the author does.
This leads us back to relativism! "The Map is not the territory" type stuff. If science only makes maps and doesn't comment on untimate reality. You have therefore abandoned scientific realism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_realism
for a form of instrumentalism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumentalism
But you are swinging dangerously close to a constructivist stance which is basically relativist. . Constructivists claim that the concepts of science are mental constructs proposed in order to explain our sensory experience. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivist_epistemology
Are physicists only Mapmakers or reporters reporting on riots of particles?
Do you see the problems I have with this concept?0 -
-
-
-
That is your opinion. Empiricism ( of the instrumentalist variety) for want of a better term.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumentalism
In the philosophy of science, instrumentalism is the view that a concept or theory should be evaluated by how effectively it explains and predicts phenomena, as opposed to how accurately it describes objective reality.
Again I really can't be responsible for every branch of science philosophy you can dig up to counter my point. Instrumentalism feel out of favor nearly 60 years ago.
Did you think I was representing the instrumentalist position when you assumed I equated scientific theory with the phenomena itself.
These discussions tend to take a rather predictable yet frustrating path
Me - I don't think there is such thing a scientific theories with no evidence.
You - I don't understand this as to me it appears to contradict "...a phenomena doesn't exist until science has measured it. That was certainly not the impression I meant to give."
Me - Scientific theories aren't phenomena.
You - That is your opinion. ... Instrumentalism ... etc ....
It is my "opinion", but it also explains why I don't think there is such thing a scientific theories with no evidence. makes sense.
It is counter productive to find fault with what I say by assuming I subscribe to obscure philosophical positions when assuming I subscribe to modern mainstream scientific position makes what I say make sense.But you are saying Boyle's theory about air was not science until it was measured?
And so was Galileo's theory that the Earth moved not science until we measured the Earth moving? It happened to be true but it was not science?
Yes. Science is about assessing if a theory is likely to be true. Simply having an idea with an unknown accuracy level is useless.
I could say the multi-verse exists. I could be right. But since I've no idea if I am or not this is of no use.How about the general theory of Relativity or the Higge's Bozon. they are not science until we confirm they exist?
Not sure what you mean confirm they exist in relation to relativity (relativity didn't confirm something existed, it explained something). The Higgs boson on the other hand is something we don't know exists, it is a prediction of theories. Confirming the Higgs particle exists will add support to the models that predicted it does.We seem to be spending tens of billions on particle accelerators and spaceships and telescopes for all this "non science" don't we?
We are spending tens of billions on particle accelerators and spaceships and telescopes so we can do science. Science is the testing of ideas. We have to test these ideas in order say they are scientific which is why we build these things so we can do this.In your view science is only ultimately about confirming by measurement.
You can take anything I say to be my view.So what if the Higges Bozon or general relativity isn't confirmed or found to be wrong like Newton and others were found not to be right? Are they not science?
You keep using that term some what oddly, "not science". Science is a methodology to filter ideas. If an idea fails to pass this methodology it is not considered a scientifically supported idea. If that is what you mean by "not science" then no it is not science.we devote a lot of time in schools learning this "non science" don't we?
I aware of no school other than religious schools that continue to teach ideas that have failed to pass scientific examination.But if the explanation is semantically literal it has to be true or false!
And? That is irrelevant to the phenomena itself.
If the theory of gravity says that on earth something will fall at 9.8m/s/s that theory is semantically literal (that statement can evaluate to true or false)
That is irrelevant to gravity itself. This should make sense to you, a theory can be wrong if it doesn't match the phenomena.
If I say things will fall at 9.8m/s/s that doesn't mean that magically gravity starts working as I said it will.
You are going to have to define what you mean by "not science". You seem to be using that terminology different to me and Morbert.So the Higge's Bozon, general relativity, evolution and Newtonian gravity are not science?
If an idea has either not attempted to pass scientific examination, or has failed scientific examination then it is not scientifically supported. If that is what you mean by not science then no not science.
A map is a comment on reality, as is a scientific theory. They are not the reality. If you change a map of England England itself doesn't change.This leads us back to relativism! "The Map is not the territory" type stuff. If science only makes maps and doesn't comment on untimate reality.Are physicists only Mapmakers or reporters reporting on riots of particles?
Do you see the problems I have with this concept?
Do you believe a physicist can alter a natural phenomena by altering the theory describing that natural phenomena?
Do you see the problems I have with that concept?0 -
-
Again I really can't be responsible for every branch of science philosophy you can dig up to counter my point.
so you accept it is a valid counter?
And you accept that you point isn't what science actually is but merely your opinion as to what it is and how it operates?Instrumentalism feel out of favor nearly 60 years ago.
Classical instrumentalism fell yes but
1. You claim something is valid if it is "in favour" and not proven i.e. it is argued by authority and opinion?
2. I made a clear distinction between the classical and the constructive imstrumentalism.Did you think I was representing the instrumentalist position when you assumed I equated scientific theory with the phenomena itself.
No if so I would call you a "realist" - I supplied the definitions.These discussions tend to take a rather predictable yet frustrating path
Me - I don't think there is such thing a scientific theories with no evidence.
You - I don't understand this as to me it appears to contradict "...a phenomena doesn't exist until science has measured it. That was certainly not the impression I meant to give."
Me - Scientific theories aren't phenomena.
You - That is your opinion. ... Instrumentalism ... etc ....
It is my "opinion", but it also explains why I don't think there is such thing a scientific theories with no evidence. makes sense.
In other words science is only about measuring things and confirmation and not about whether any real thing exists in the first place? "Preserving the appearances" I think the people called it in Galileo's time. Don't you agree that if you view things that way ( as the Church did at the time of galileo) there is therefore no point in arguing about Galileo being right?It is counter productive to find fault with what I say
It is a logical and reasonable thing to do if such a fault exists. what I am trying to do it acquaint you with elements you might not have considered.by assuming I subscribe to obscure philosophical positions
A. I didn't assume. I put extensive effort into clarifying what your position is. I supply plenty of references and definitions and point to the fact that the opinions you express are along the lines of prior thinkers in the field and point out the problems they encountered. Far from being counter productive this is how academic exploration takes place.
when assuming I subscribe to modern mainstream scientific position makes what I say make sense.
What is "modern mainstream science"? Was that the science followed by people when Galileo said they were all wrong? How about the science followed by Newtonian Physicists was that modern mainstream science then? Arew wormholes and the Higges particle modern mainstream science?Yes. Science is about assessing if a theory is likely to be true. Simply having an idea with an unknown accuracy level is useless.
So the Higges bozon and wormholes are NOT science until they can be shown to be! Nor was electromagnetism, relativity, gas laws, etc. And when somebody comes along and shows Newton's theory is wrong then it stops being science and whatever is more accurate (because it lives up to more tests and conformation) suddenly becomes science.
Apparently the "Big Bang" is science. You are aware there are only three or four things which "confirm" the Big Bang and some counter theories ? I would suggest both are scientific but only one is true.I could say the multi-verse exists. I could be right. But since I've no idea if I am or not this is of no use.
It could be! It could force you into doing mathematics which could be used elsewhere to prove something else for example. Who are you to judge the academic freedom of another academic? how can you say what they do is useless?Not sure what you mean confirm they exist in relation to relativity (relativity didn't confirm something existed, it explained something). The Higgs boson on the other hand is something we don't know exists, it is a prediction of theories. Confirming the Higgs particle exists will add support to the models that predicted it does.
And it isn't science! Until it is confirmed. Then suddenly as if by magic let there be a Higge's Bozon! It is part of science.We are spending tens of billions on particle accelerators and spaceships and telescopes so we can do science. Science is the testing of ideas.
That is a contradiction! Either it is the conformation of useful things or it included the ideas before they are tested and confirmed. Which is it?We have to test these ideas in order say they are scientific which is why we build these things so we can do this.
I mean have you considered how you can test things you have not yet thought of?
It doesn't make sense really does it?
You can take anything I say to be my view.You keep using that term some what oddly, "not science". Science is a methodology to filter ideas.
But what happened to your earlier definition? that something isnt part of science until confirmed? Now it is the confirmation process? Does this process in fact involve the idea in the first place? Before the process is even thought of? Bit by bit we are going back to untested hypothesis. BEFORE confirmation or before constructing a confirmation or falsification test.If an idea fails to pass this methodology it is not considered a scientifically supported idea. If that is what you mean by "not science" then no it is not science.
the point is:
Is it a "scientifically supported" idea before any such test is constructed?
I aware of no school other than religious schools that continue to teach ideas that have failed to pass scientific examination.
Newtonian Gravitation is superseded by Einsteinian gravity! It fails to confirm the advance of the perihelion of Mercury. We still teach it!
That is irrelevant to gravity itself. This should make sense to you, a theory can be wrong if it doesn't match the phenomena.
Like Newtonian Gravity and Mercury's perihelion?If I say things will fall at 9.8m/s/s that doesn't mean that magically gravity starts working as I said it will.
Yes a genetic fallacy - confusing origin with cause - so what?You are going to have to define what you mean by "not science". You seem to be using that terminology different to me and Morbert.
You - science is about measurement and confirmation.
Me- what about things not measured and not confirmed are they NOT science?If an idea has either not attempted to pass scientific examination, or has failed scientific examination then it is not scientifically supported. If that is what you mean by not science then no not science.
Newtonian gravitation is therefore not science!
And dowsing is because people have "attempted to pass scientific examination"?A map is a comment on reality, as is a scientific theory.
More contradiction. The instrumentalist says "we just make maps we dont comment on the territory" A realist says "science is trying to understand the territory" that there is a real world out there we can understand.
When you say a comment "on reality" you make a gesture to your pewrsonal confirmation of a "reality". You aren't arguing about maps anymore but admitting the real world is there and you can find out about it.They are not the reality. If you change a map of England England itself doesn't change.
so there IS an objective reality just as there is an England? and science is about discovering that reality or not? You have changed position to one of realism now?
What happened to "the Map is not the territory and science only being about making maps"Do you believe a physicist can alter a natural phenomena by altering the theory describing that natural phenomena?
That is an excellent question. It presupposes a realist stance and not a relativist one so I will answer it in that sense. No.
A relativist would however say reality is all about description that we can't talk about objective natural phenomena and that knowledge is constructed by us. To a relativist objective phenoma dont really exist!Do you see the problems I have with that concept?
Well?0 -
-
so you accept it is a valid counter?
To what exactly?
You said my posts were contradicting themselves. You wheeled out instramentalism to justify that idea, yet didn't establish I actually hold to the ideas of instramentalism, which I don't.
So where is the contradiction?And you accept that you point isn't what science actually is but merely your opinion as to what it is and how it operates?
We have been over this before. When I say "science" I mean the mainstream modern philosophy, not the entire body of philosophical discussion that has taken place over the last 400 years.
Instrumentalism is not, as far as I'm aware, in favor by anyone these days.
Instrumentalism also isn't actually a counter to the idea that a theory is the phenomena and vice versa. Instrumentalism is the view that the theory is considered correct if it can explain the observations of the phenomena even if how it was producing matching results is different to how the phenomena produced them.
To use a map making terminology, if you the woods are green and your map is green that is enough, you don't have to represent on your map that the territory is green because there are trees there.
It still didn't mean the theory was the phenomena. But all that is some what irrelevant since I don't hold to instramentalism anyway.Classical instrumentalism fell yes but
1. You claim something is valid if it is "in favour" and not proven i.e. it is argued by authority and opinion?
I don't claim something is valid if it is in favour. I suggested that this discussion would move faster if to support points about me contradicting myself you stuck to current in favour modern mainstream science instead of digging out any obscure philosophical position and assuming I hold to it in order to find a contradiction in what I'm saying.In other words science is only about measuring things and confirmation and not about whether any real thing exists in the first place?
Define "real things". Why are the things you are measuring if they are not real?
And what does this have to do with the frustrating path our discussions take?
The fault only exists if you assume I subscribe to an obscure out of favour philosophical position. Given that this produces a contradiction in what I say wouldn't be more logical to assume I don't hold to this philosophical position since not holding to it makes the contradiction disappear.It is a logical and reasonable thing to do if such a fault exists.
Its like me saying I love a good beef roast on Sundays to have you say that a contradictory position, have use debate for a while until I discover you are assuming I am vegetarian.what I am trying to do it acquaint you with elements you might not have considered.
It seems to me you are trying to retro-actively justify claims of contradiction.So the Higges bozon and wormholes are NOT science until they can be shown to be!
Both those things are predicted phenomena. They wouldn't be "science" even if they were shown to exist. Science is a methodology for sorting ideas about the natural world. Ideas are scientific or not scientific based on whether they are survived scientific examination. Phenomena are not considered scientific or not-scientific.
A lightening bolt is not "science". The theory explaining what a lightening bolt is is a scientifically verified theory, ie an idea of explaining a lightening bolt that has passed rigorous scientific examination.And when somebody comes along and shows Newton's theory is wrong then it stops being science
Again you are going to have to explain what "being science" means as as I said in my previous post you are using that term in a some what weird way.It could be! It could force you into doing mathematics which could be used elsewhere to prove something else for example.
Groan. I didn't think this had to be clarified, but when I said "use" I mean use in explaining the natural world, which is the purpose of science.
My idea about the multiverse could inspire me to have a baby with my girlfriend, but that obviously (or so I thought) wasn't what I meant.
You are getting back to being needlessly argumentative now.And it isn't science! Until it is confirmed. Then suddenly as if by magic let there be a Higge's Bozon! It is part of science.
Science is a process an idea passes through.
You might as well say a law "magically" becomes constitutional once it is passed by the President.That is a contradiction! Either it is the conformation of useful things or it included the ideas before they are tested and confirmed. Which is it?
What are you talking about?
Science is a process of filtering ideas so we are left with ones we have high confidence in and we throw away the ones we don't. We build particle accelerators and telescopes to do this, to test our ideas.
Bad ideas enter this process along with good ideas, that is the purpose of the process because at the start we don't know if they are bad ideas or good ideas.
I'm really failing to grasp your problem with this, but I would suggest that what ever you THINK I'm saying that isn't what I'm saying since what ever you think I'm saying seems to be tying you up in great knots when in fact all of this is pretty simple.I mean have you considered how you can test things you have not yet thought of?
Why would need or want to?But what happened to your earlier definition? that something isnt part of science until confirmed?
Define "part of science". Again this is your increasingly wonky terminology not mine.
Science is a methodology, a process. I have never suggested otherwise. An idea is scientific verified if it has gone through this process and survived.
Think of it like assessing if a law is or isn't constitutional.Is it a "scientifically supported" idea before any such test is constructed?
You seem to be getting into this quasi-philosophical realm of is a painting beautiful before it has been painted ponderings. Or is a law constitutional before anyone came up with the law?
Is that really necessary?Newtonian Gravitation is superseded by Einsteinian gravity! It fails to confirm the advance of the perihelion of Mercury. We still teach it!
What has teaching got to do with anything? Did I ever say you can't teach non-scientific ideas, or teach that an idea was once considered highly scientifically accurate but has now be superseded by much more accurate ideas?
Yes. Gravity didn't change to fit Newton's ideas of gravity.Like Newtonian Gravity and Mercury's perihelion?Yes a genetic fallacy - confusing origin with cause - so what?
It is not confusing origin with cause, it is confusing a model with the thing it is representing.You - science is about measurement and confirmation.
Me- what about things not measured and not confirmed are they NOT science?
Again you are going to have to confirm what you mean by not science.
Science is a thing you do. Asking is an idea not science is like asking is a mountain not geographical survey. Such a question by itself does not make sense. If the mountain has not be geographically surveyed then it is not geographically surveyed. The mountain still exists but our understand of it is less that it would be after the survey.Newtonian gravitation is therefore not science!
Newtonian gravitation is not considered scientifically accurate anymore. General relativity is a much more accurate explanation for the phenomena of gravity.
In the same way that the 1850 geographical survey of Wicklow is not the one that pops up when you load Google Maps.
Only you can answer does that mean the 1850 geographical survey of Wicklow is or isn't geographical survey since only you seem to be following that line of terminology.More contradiction. The instrumentalist says "we just make maps we dont comment on the territory" A realist says "science is trying to understand the territory" that there is a real world out there we can understand.
No that isn't what either says. An instrumentalists says it doesn't matter how you make the map so long as the map looks like the land.
So an instrumentalist might color in an area of the map green.
Where as a non-instrumentalist (which covers a range of other ideas and philosophoies) would instead of coloring in the area green right "trees"
An instrumentalist might put a large square brick textured shape beside a black wide line on the ground, where as a non-instrumentalist would say "house" along a "road"
The instrumentalists is saying it is enough that the map produces the same outcome as viewing the actual territory, where as a non-instrumentalist would say that you have to understand why the model is making this output and see if it is making this output for the same reason as the real world. That red brick structure is a house, and the map should reflect that.
Both are comments on reality, but the instrumentalist believes it is important to simply get it to look like reality without needing to know why it does.
I'm not an instrumentalist.When you say a comment "on reality" you make a gesture to your pewrsonal confirmation of a "reality". You aren't arguing about maps anymore but admitting the real world is there and you can find out about it.
You have lost me. Can you point out a map maker who didn't believe the real world existed? If so what was he mapping?so there IS an objective reality just as there is an England? and science is about discovering that reality or not? You have changed position to one of realism now?
My position has never changed. There is England and there are maps of England. There are natural phenomena and there are scientific theories explaining natural phenomena.
Once again we come to the rather tiresome need to say ISAW what ever you think I'm saying, I'm not. :rolleyes:What happened to "the Map is not the territory and science only being about making maps"
Nothing happened to it. The map is not the territory (if you destroy a map of England England doesn't disappear). If you rip up a book on general realtivity the universe doesn't implode.That is an excellent question. It presupposes a realist stance and not a relativist one so I will answer it in that sense. No.
So why do you have such trouble understanding when I say the same thing?A relativist would however say reality is all about description that we can't talk about objective natural phenomena and that knowledge is constructed by us. To a relativist objective phenoma dont really exist!
Since neither of us are relativists that is some what irrelevant.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
While technically that is the instrumentalists position that is not what makes it the instrumentalists position (ie it is not the thing unique to instrumentalism)
so you are only technically an instrumentalist?nor is that position exclusive to instrumentalist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science#Scientific_realism_and_instrumentalism
Scientific realists claim that science aims at truth and that one ought to regard scientific theories as true, approximately true, or likely true. Conversely, a scientific antirealist or instrumentalist argues that science does not aim (or at least does not succeed) at truth and that we should not regard scientific theories as true.[7] Some antirealists claim that scientific theories aim at being instrumentally useful and should only be regarded as useful, but not true, descriptions of the world.[8]
When you sayscience is about maps and confirmation and all about accurate measurement.
It isn't about describing a real territory. when you totally reject things which cant be observed or for which you can't measure or produce evidence and which are just theories or models without confirming backup you are accepting only that which can be measured. What help is it to say a real thing may well exist if you believe that in the absence of measurement of this "real thing" it is not part of science?The instrumentalists position is that a theory does not have to explain why it produces accurate results that match observation, the fact that it does is good enough. Non-instrumentalist position would be it does matter that the model produces the accurate results for the same reason the phenomena does.
So what?First of all I'm not an instrumentalist.
But you believe anything which cant be observed and measured is not part of science?Second of all saying I'm an instrumentalists doesn't contradict that science is about models of natural phenomena. Both instrumentalists and non-instrumentalist positions view science as the process of constructing accurate models of natural phenomena, but instrumentalists hold a particular position on how the model produces this accuracy (ie it doesn't matter how the model produces this accuracy just so long as it does).
It might be impossible to say how it does: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duhem%E2%80%93Quine_thesisI haven't made an argument about instrumentalism
how about the argument where all that matters in science is accurately measuring things as opposed to theories and hypothesis describing unmeasured or unmeasurable things which are not to be regarded as science?other than I don't subscribe,
[/quoter]
That isn't an argument it is an opinionit isn't used very often if at all in modern science and given that I'm puzzled as to why you would assume I did subscribe to it.
considering dating from the early twentieth it is about as modern as relativity or quantum physics I would wonder what you mean by "modern science"? Recent developments in constructive instrumentalism date from the 1980s. ( Van Fraassen, The Scientific Image.) Several times you have pushed out this idea as if it is a jaded theory rejected by authority. I think you have stated that all that matters in science is accurately measuring things as opposed to theories and hypothesis describing unmeasured or unmeasurable things which are not to be regarded as science. that is why I say you have instrumentalist tendencies.
http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Scientific+instrumentalism
instrumentalism or experimentalism
Philosophy advanced by John Dewey holding that what is most important in a thing or idea is its value as an instrument of action and that the truth of an idea lies in its usefulness.
Mind you I would call this pragmatism.In the instrumentalist view, consciousness (or intelligence, in Dewey’s terms) is a means of adaptation to changing environmental conditions: logical concepts, ideas, and scientific laws and theories are all simply instruments (hence the name “instrumen-talism”), tools, “keys to situations,” or “plans for action.” In thus rejecting the objective content of knowledge and the view that truth is a reflection of material reality, instrumentalism regards truth in purely functional respects as something that “assures success in a given situation.” The Great Soviet Encyclopedia (1979)
No that is not the claim it makes.
[i.e.. does not claim to describe the real world?]
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Instrumentalism
Instrumentalism is a view in philosophy of science that claims scientific theories are merely useful tools for predicting phenomena instead of true or approximately true descriptions of the physical world.
Instrumentalists believe they are modeling the real world in that they are modeling the results of phenomena, but not worrying about how they get those results.
I disagree. I have made my point clear.
http://moderndilettante.wordpress.com/2007/01/12/instrumentalism-and-the-embarrassing-history-of-science/This sad state has fostered a philosophical position known as instrumentalism; the thesis that scientific theories should not be interpreted literally–i.e., that the constituents of the theory should not be taken to be referring to ‘real’ components of reality and that, therefore, the theory should not be taken to be an attempt to genuinely and accurately describe reality as it exists apart from the theory. Thus, science, according to the instrumentalists, whatever it is, is not the attempt to accurately describe the world we inhabit. The task of the scientist is to generate and enumerate predictively successful theories in any way possible. This means that the entities posited by our best scientific theories should not be taken literally because the instrumentalist theorist does not really believe in the reality of the entities posited.This is why instrumentalism feel out of favor, most scientists now believe that this isn't enough, it is unsatisfactory to look solely at making your results line up with phenomena even if you don't know why.
If you really believe that then why do you hold that science is ultimately and only about measuring things accurately?( message 46)Instrumentalism is about modeling the real world. What do you think they were attempting to model if not the real world?
No it isn't!
Bolding added by me:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/k6m3524q634v4g52/In general the division is equivalent to
that between scientific realists who affirm the existence of entities supposedly
denoted by the terms scientists use in their explanations and
predictions, and scientific instrumentalists who claim that because for the
kind of explanation science requires no entities need be assumed, the
purely theoretical terms of science are nonreferring symbolic devices that
function solely as integral parts of inference rules to warrant inferences
among observation statements This debate between scientific realists and instrumentalists is about the reality of theoretical entities,Yes I can quote Wikipedia too but you actually understand what that means?
Hmmm. QED!The phenomena is still in the "real world".
To a realist.This discussion is quite lacking attempts by you to get me to define my position.
I wont rehearse the numbers of questions i have asked and outlines I have presented and asked you to verify.Most of it is made up with me attempting to explain to you that my position isn't what you assume it to be.
i can only go by what you state! e.g. "ALL SCIENCE IS ONLY ABOUT ACCURACY"We have gone from you thinking am I realist to you assuming I'm an instrumentalist. I'm neither.
I didnt define you as either .
You have leaned on radically opposing philosophies in support of your position. You can't subscribe to two mutually contradictory philosophies. Well you can, as Kuhn pointed out, but in the end you ultimately have to reject one paradigm.
Do you still believe all science is only about accuracy?I'm well aware of the problems instrumentalists encountered, it is one of the reasons I'm not an instrumentalist. I find the whole idea profoundly unsatisfactory, as did a lot of other people.
so science is not just about measuring things accurately? It is about other things? Might it not even be about unobservables, unmeasurable things, or things that exist only as hypothesis or theory?Going back a few posts there is actually nothing contradictory in what I was saying at all. You asserted I held to instrumentalism and then charged me with contradicting myself, when in fact I don't hold to instrumentalism at all so there is no contradiction
So all science is not just about measuring things accurately? It is about other things? Might it not even be about unobservable things, unmeasurable things, or things that exist only as hypothesis or theory?
You are aware these are the central criticisms foisted on instrumentalism?Again can you see why I find these sort of arguments by you to be deeply frustrating.
Maybe because they point out contradictions in your position and while you rely on concepts from a particular philosophy you claim to reject that philosophy? So I put these concepts to you and you adhere to them yet still claim not to follow that philosophy and offer a differing definition of it than found in reference work. Finally I point to why I thought you had such notions in the first place and how the "all about measurement"
empirical ideals of instrumentalism had been critiqued in the past. But in spiote of direct question I still have no answer to "Do you still believe all science is only about accuracy?"I don't hold any contradictory position. What ever position you think I hold that is contradictory I assure you I don't.
that may be what you believe but do you also still believe all science is only about accuracy? Accurate instrument is what science is all about?This time I'm not sure what the heck you think I subscribe to that is contradicting something else, but perhaps you should have learnt a lesson from the last time.
Yes that I should ask you to clarify things before I proceed. It took several pages to nail down your claims on relativism. I accept you aren't one but this is problematic if you believe science is about accurate measurements and not about theories or hypothesis on relality.Instruments are not processes and processes are not instruments so that question doesn't make sense.
The argument isnt linguistic!
Synthese
Volume 25, Numbers 1-2, 82-128,
http://www.springerlink.com/content/k6m3524q634v4g52/
page 84(7) If theoretical terms of science are unnecessary, then there is no
reason to postulate the existence of any referents of theoretical terms,
i.e. any theoretical entities.
(8) If there is no reason to postulate the existence of any theoretical
entities, then it is unreasonable to believe that there are any theoretical
entities, i.e. it is reasonable to accept scientific instrumentalist.It may seem I'm being overly pedantic but you have tendency to take what I saw based on exact literal meaning so from no one I want you to define things very carefully lest me agreeing or not agreeing with you is simply turned around as something else to attack me with.
Ironically Hegel called "synthesis" i.e. thesis ->antithesis ->.
The think is while you may say I don't know what I am talking about and don't understand instrumentalism I would say "go by what I write". I think I have demonstrated I do have some idea about the subject. I am going by what you claimed and you "science is all about accuracy" position was the one that setr me of exploring what the basis for that position was.Not accurate descriptions of the real world (as if there is another kind)
Other kind of description or other kind of world? what do you emphasise?Again I'm very fuzzy as to what context you are using instrument through out this discussion so I'm ignoring questions that ask me to say something is or isn't an instrument.
Having not replied to you remarks that I don't understand what "scientific instrumentalism" is need I remind you that it views science as an instrument - hence the name?They accurately describe the real world. We can never tell if a model is describing the real world (ie 100% accurate)
But we can. Let me first ask you if you accept the fact that experimental error has nothing to do with this? i.e. just because we measure something plus or minus one percent isn't anything to do with the "not 100 per cent accurate" argument?
Now While I cant say the number of air molecules in a room I can say with 100 per cent accuracy that the room contains air and not poisonous gas. I can say with 100 per cent accuracy that the earth has been going round the Sun for the last year.You say those things as if they are mutually exclusive. They aren't. I really don't think you understand instrumentalism.
So you may believe. What evidence do you have to support that thesis?Closest to scientific realism, mainly because constructive empiricism is very badly defined as far as I can tell from reading about it on the internet (it is claimed it is an anti-realist argument, which may be true, but has parts which fit with realism)
Relativists tend to be like that. Watch out!
As for me I hate constructivism but find it very difficult to disprove.I can't see anyway to do science without spending money. Are you saying we should never explore new ideas, only ideas that have already been scientifically established?
Nope I accept a pragmatic approach. I am aware much Chemistry is funded by computing budgets. But im saying that you have suggested science is not those things on which much if not most of our science money and science education money is spent.
Does that not lead you to question your definition of science?Surely then we will never develop new scientific ideas if you refuse to spend money testing an idea unless you already know it will pass scientific processes?
If they already knew they would have a prototype. But I agree with you. We test things
to see if they pass our instrument. But the problem I have is that BEFORE the test you are suggesting these things are not scientific but AFTER the test they are. I would think they always were. And if you are a realist what magically happened when these things become confirmed? How have they changed if they always existed?Standford put it better
Scientific realists hold that the characteristic product of successful scientific research is knowledge of largely theory-independent phenomena and that such knowledge is possible (indeed actual) even in those cases in which the relevant phenomena are not, in any non-question-begging sense, observable
In this view science is attempting to describe the world as it is. I think the problem you are making is not realising that science can also get it wrong and when getting it wrong realists don't believe the natural world itself changes to fit this wrong model.
No i asking you how is it you reject a model of something which has not been observed as not part of science as you did with wormholes etc.? How is only things which are measured accurately are part of science in your view? And if it does not matter HOW that is but it just is then how are you not an instrumentalist?Science is a methodology. The only "parts" of it are the parts of the process
Only a method? Only an instrument? Or is science also hypotheses and theories even when these theories have not yet been confirmed or falsified?It was never not a process.
I have to admit you are confusing me here. How is science only a process and also not an instrument?
Here read this and tell me what you think about it:
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.115.8174&rep=rep1&type=pdfNeither say science isn't a process. I'm not aware of any philosophical concept of science where science is not a methodology or process. They argue about what the process is and what the conclusions of it are.
there is the process content dichotomy.
But Ros Driver is one of these arch constructivists.
To make yoursewlf aware of a philosophical concept of science where science is not a methodology or process see page 414 Millar and Driver (1987),
http://www.springerlink.com/content/t78564h854314643/
Nice woman though. RIP. The pupil as scientist? ( 1983) is well worth a read.And I'm not an instrumentalist.
In denial now ? Joking aside, I think I have made my point about that clear.I don't know how to answer that because I don't know what you think something being science is. You have to define that first then I can answer that question based no your idea of something "being science"
No I don't really! I don't have to offer my definition. we are discussing your idea of science not mine. Ill quite happily tell you what I believe though. I believe hypotheses theory and measurement are all part of a scientific world view or paradigm. This is personalised by the observer but doesn't mean that an objective real world out there does not exist.
The difference is what they think their maps should do.
Ah now that would be utilitarianism!
"should be evaluated by how effectively it explains and predicts phenomena"
The land is the phenomena. The difference is the level of understanding of the land.
Hmmm. Im beginning to get a different concept of your position. It now seems realist. But why cant you entertain objective reality in absence of measurement of it? i have difficulty with this too. Sagan's dragon.What do you think a mapping process is if it isn't exploring the real world?
The Classical answer is "An instrument for preserving the appearances"You don't have to see something to measure it. You can for example measure it through the effect it has on other things, that is how we detect extra-solar planets, by observing the pull they have on stars.
Indirect measurement is still measurement NB "by observing the pull they have on stars"?I would consider that observing extra-solar planets, though I'm pretty sure you will dig up some obscure philosophical position that says I'm wrong :rolleyes:
It isn't non observable if you observe an effect it has!
That seems obscure to you??England still exists. With out getting into the realm of quantum physics, it doesn't go puff! and disappear just because people stop looking at it.
And if nobody never went there it would still exist? In the absence of any evidence for it it would still exist? So how come you cant say this for wormholes or theoretical particles or alternate universes. Personally I have different levels of or criteria for what I accept like this as science but not necessarily on a scientific basis. e.g. i might accept the Higges Bozon but not tachyons or dark energy and I might not accept parallel universes but accept wormholes.0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement