Science, Philosophy, etc. and Truth

AI

Re: Science, Philosophy, etc. and Truth

Postby lesterDELzick » Fri, 17 Dec 2004 01:53:14 GMT

                 Science, Philosophy, etc. and Truth
                                     ---------------

Allow me to summarize certain lines of reasoning relating to the
definitions of science, philosophy, etc. so as to make the idea of
truth more explicit.

Science argues that certain things are true.

Philosophy argues that certain things are true; we just can't tell
which ones.

Mysticism postulates that everything is true.

Art just argues that truth is beauty and beauty truth; that is all ye
know and all ye need to know.

Mathematics argues that in the highly unlikely event that anything
turns out to be true, they have dibs on it.

Physics argues that they don't need no stinkin truth.

Quantum theory maintains that quanta are discrete but that I shall
never see a quantum pretty as a tree, or at all.

Computationalism argues that truth returns a truth function of 1.

Behaviorism argues that truth returns a truth function of 0.

Regards - Lester

Similar Threads:

1.Science, Philosophy, etc. and Truth

Lester Zick wrote:
> Science, Philosophy, etc. and Truth
>                                      ---------------
>
> Allow me to summarize certain lines of reasoning relating to the
> definitions of science, philosophy, etc. so as to make the idea of
> truth more explicit.

Allow?
>
> Science argues that certain things are true.

Wrong

>
> Philosophy argues that certain things are true; we just can't tell
> which ones.

Wrong


>
> Mysticism postulates that everything is true.

Mysticism advocates a direct contact with 'reality' by spiritual means.


>
> Art just argues that truth is beauty and beauty truth; that is all ye
> know and all ye need to know.

You know nothing about art that is.

>
> Mathematics argues that in the highly unlikely event that anything
> turns out to be true, they have dibs on it.

Which mathematics? Platonic, Formalistic or Constructivistic?

>
> Physics argues that they don't need no stinkin truth.

You are now identified as failed liberal arts major.

>
> Quantum theory maintains that quanta are discrete but that I shall
> never see a quantum pretty as a tree, or at all.

Better you talk about art:)


>
> Computationalism argues that truth returns a truth function of 1.

Liberal arts majors do not take numerial analysis


>
> Behaviorism argues that truth returns a truth function of 0.

Which Behaviorism, Metaphysical, Linguistic, Logical or Functional?

>
> Regards - Lester

Allow me to say that you don't know what you're talking about
biiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiig tiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiime


Mike

2.Science, Philosophy, and Mysticism

                    Science, Philosophy, and Mysticism
                                     ---------------

Allow me to summarize certain lines of reasoning relating to the
definition of science, philosophy, and mysticism so as to make these
ideas explicit.

Science argues that A is C because A is B and B is C.

Philosophy argues that A is C either because A is B and "let me tell
you a little story about B and C" or because "let me tell you a little
story about A and B" and B is C.

Mysticism just postulates that A is C because X is Y and the two are
connected by "let me tell you a little story".

Regards - Lester

3.The Philosophy of Behavioral Science

                     The Philosophy of Behavioral Science
                                ----------------------------

In order to establish the methodology of any behavioral science it is
necessary to establish the nature of the behavior under consideration.
All things behave in various ways and to ascertain the form of science
applicable to that behavior we need to understand the properties of
the behavior under consideration.

The philosophy of behavioral science is a simple one: establish the
nature of the dependency between dependent and independent variables
and experiment on ponderables or observables defined by the nature of
the dependency between dependent and independent variables.

This works for all forms of behavior from physics to the intellect.
All are subject to experimental resolution once the nature of the
dependency between dependent and independent variables is defined.

With material interactions the dependency is defined according to such
properties as f=ma, e=mcc, and various quantum relations. In the case
of cognitive behavior we conjecturally define the dependency in terms
of differences between material differences and experimental variables
defined in terms of those differences.

One of the difficulties encountered with philosophies of science in
historical terms is that ponderables or observables are only viewed
from one perspective. In the antiquity this commonly took the form of
observables defined in ontological or religious terms whereas in the
modern world this usually takes the form of physical ponderables
similar to those of physical sciences.

What needs to be understood however is that experimental observables
are not simply ponderbles as we think of such things in perceptual
terms. Experimental observables are instead defined properties of the
dependency between dependent and independent experimental variables.

In other words if we are interested in doing science we have to define
the relation between the kinds of variables we are interested in. It
is not enough for science just to experiment on variables any which
way at all. If we define the behavioral dependency between certain
variables there are definite properties of that dependency suitable
for experimentation.

Nor can we just experiment on one form of behavioral dependency
according to another form of behavioral dependency. If we define
experimental observables according to physical properties for material
interactions such as f=ma and e=mcc but then experiment on those
variables according to the dependency for intellectual observables,
all we will find is that material interactions are unintelligent.

Or on the other hand if we reverse the process and experiment on
intelligent behavioral dependencies according to the dependencies for
material interactions all we can hope to determine is that the results
don't indicate anything except f=ma and e=mcc.

The critical thing to realize is it is how behavioral dependencies are
defined that renders things ponderable or observable. There are no
automatic experimental observables without that definition and any
choices of behavioral observables for experimentation without the
definition of the behavioral dependency will just be aritrary.

This is the reason many sciences and scientific methodologies have
gone extinct. Much to the chagrin of behaviorists behaviorism has gone
the way of the dinosaurs simply because it failed to deal with well
defined behavioral dependencies in experimental terms, purely as a
matter of philosophical prejudice. And this philosophical prejudice
was only possible because the nature of the definition of behavioral
dependencies as the basis of science was improperly understood.

Regards - Lester

4.Jeff Hawkins Q&A philosophy not science

feedbackdroids wrote:
..
>
> Boy, these things just go around in the same
> loops forever, don't they. I've already mentioned
> 3 or 4 times on this thread my basic ideas for
> this. Makes a little more sense, given the
> increased complexity and well-known neuroanatomy
> of the human brain over lesser evolved brains,
> than invoking parallel universes, tapping into
> cosmic consciousness, made-up stories, and other
> leaps of faith. Might also be testable, some
> day. Some people are attempting to use MRI to
> gain some initial knowledge in this area, while
> others are just invoking mysterianism and
> unknowability.

Keep in mind philosophy is not science although
it tries not transgress on known science. There
is of course a philosophy of science which is
what I was referring to before: relevance and
testability of ideas.

Philosophical ideas, like religious ideas, have
a poor track record when it comes to getting it
right.


5.Some Philosophy of Science speak ( Some 3-D Trig)

"KP_PC" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM > wrote in message news:<edwNa.37966$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM >...
> I don't reject Falsifiability.

Neither do I.

But my humble belief is that such a negative connotation runs contrary
to the purpose of practicing science.

In fact, if you are a scientist taught by a certain scientific dogma
everything you will say will automatically be "falsified" and the
dogma will reign for eternity. So, in a way championing such a notion
is destined to kill science if it is indeed adopted by all scientists.
Luckily, scientists do not pay attention to any of the philosophy of
science crap :) But maybe they should be listening to the wiser
philosophers, that's another matter :) I'd say they should at least
reflect on what they are doing, and what their conception of nature
is.

Therefore, we would never have anything like theory of relativity if
there were not free spirited scientists who saw through the
limitations of Newtonian mechanics and gave credence to Einstein's
work.

There are a lot of things we presuppose about what science is, but my
feeling is that we do not really know how we are doing science. That
is why we should not be imposing artificial boundaries on an intricate
process that we cannot comprehend.

Let me show you another dogma. Become Chomsky's student and then argue
that "innateness assumption" is totally wrong. See what happens.

However, I believe Neil is referring to "scientific practice" that I
speak by "pragmatics of science". It is the experience of the
scientist that contributes to scientific thought.

Thank you,

__
Eray Ozkural

6. Science, Philosophy, Mysticism, Art, Mathematics, and Physics

7. 7 films in philosophy and science

8. truth vs. Truth



Return to AI

 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guest