A photograph of the 29 smartest people in the world

[anthony]

19 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

What has philosophy ever delivered? 

 

Self-contradiction #2. You yourself have a palpable philosophy, despite protestations - so you tell me. What has it delivered to you?

Albeit, it looks mostly David Hume's, and his is quite an anti-philosophy philosophy. 

[BaalChatzaf]

1 hour ago, anthony said:

Self-contradiction #2. You yourself have a palpable philosophy, despite protestations - so you tell me. What has it delivered to you?

Albeit, it looks mostly David Hume's, and his is quite an anti-philosophy philosophy. 

I  will be more specific. What have the metaphysics of Aristotle and Plato delivered (besides error).? 

The real  problem is metaphysics.  Modern philosophical theories are  epistemological and analytic  rather than ethical  or metaphysical. 

Since the 19 th century the trend has been to make the physical sciences as free of metaphysics as possible. 

[Brant Gaede]

6 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

The epistemology of modern physics  is nothing like the basis that Aristotle laid.   Modern science had to purge itself of Aristotelian metaphysics  and Aristotelian notions  of matter and motion. 

Aristotle's metaphysics  lead to the Ptolemaic cosmology.  Plato's theory of Forms  had a negative impact on the development of biology and the modern theory of evolution.

Of course sciences has epistemological  and logical metaprinciples   But they are nothing like what Aristotle and Plato produced. 

If you want to see in what philosophical  directions modern physical science has led,  read   Karl Popper and Mario Bunge.  And not it is the science that has done the leading not the philosophy.

Aristotle denied atoms  for -philosophical- reasons.  He denied the existence of a vacuum for philosophical reasons.   His philosophy prevented him from discovering inertia and momentum.  In every instance the errors occurred because philosophy was put first. 

Facts Rule.  Theories sometimes serve. 

Okay. You are saying science is either philosophy free or free now of Aristotle's wrong philosophy making it a right philosophy?

If it's philosophy free what is the scientific method?

How does science lead philosophy? Facts lead thinking? I realize, but do you, that we are asking looking about us whether the chicken came before the egg?

Scientists and their hangers' on are privileged in this society to pull up the drawbridge and, like the little boy in his crib clutching his teddy bear, pretend how autonomous they are.

Do you know of evil scientists, engineers, industrialists, businessmen--all whom deal/dealt with facts (physical reality)--coughing up all the Zyklon B Hitler needed? Or do you just strike "evil"?

Nazi philosophy lead those folk around and about by their collective noses. The "science" followed philosophy--for evil. When it follows philosophy for good we understand science is not, per se, beyond good and evil. Philosophy rules science because men have free will and they need standards of choice for their choosings. Thus ethics--morality--should be part of science--and more so than merely the scientific method.

--Brant

[anthony]

7 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

I  will be more specific. What have the metaphysics of Aristotle and Plato delivered (besides error).? 

The real  problem is metaphysics.  Modern philosophical theories are  epistemological and analytic  rather than ethical  or metaphysical. 

Since the 19 th century the trend has been to make the physical sciences as free of metaphysics as possible. 

Can we not get over this "primacy of science" rubbish? (yeah, I know, not possible).

Before science there is existence and before the scientists there's consciousness.

You never speak of Objectivist metaphysics but blame the ancients, who (somehow)should have known better. ;)

 Perhaps you didn't take it seriously, philosophy - a rational one - enables you to think for yourself. If you understand the ramifications of this.

If one leaves it up to scientists one wouldn't know how or why to get out of bed each day -- and that's going to be the legacy of a metaphysics-free "philosophy of science": obedient automatons who "don't know".

[anthony]

8 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Physics is an intellectual tool.  It can be used or misused.  But properly used it has made our modern world a much better place to live in than the world was 200 years ago and before.

Yes, yes, on all counts. We can see. Still however pushing through the utterly false dichotomy to set philosophy against science. I don't and have not catered to that.

Do you even ~momentarily~ question any "misuse" of physics, and its causes? Might here be the province of philosophy, epistemology and ethics, doncha think?

[BaalChatzaf]

5 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

 

If it's philosophy free what is the scientific method?

Discourses about scientific methodology are epistemological,  not metaphysical.  Metaphysics has been largely removed from modern physical science. 

Any well structured  discipline will have a corpus of meta-disciplinary statements.  The game of bridge not only has rules but it has literature on strategy which are -about- the game of bridge,  not the game itself. 

[BaalChatzaf]

4 hours ago, anthony said:

Can we not get over this "primacy of science" rubbish? (yeah, I know, not possible).

Modern science was born separately from Platonic or Aristotelian metaphysics  and to some extent in  opposition to Platonic or Aristotelian metaphysics.  

The metaphysics of Aristotle and Plato interfered with the development of proper physical science.  That is why most people in the physical sciences have anti-metaphysical attitudes. 

[BaalChatzaf]

4 hours ago, anthony said:

Yes, yes, on all counts. We can see. Still however pushing through the utterly false dichotomy to set philosophy against science. I don't and have not catered to that.

Do you even ~momentarily~ question any "misuse" of physics, and its causes? Might here be the province of philosophy, epistemology and ethics, doncha think?

The methodology of science  is neutral ethically.  It can be practiced to achieve either good or evil ends.  An equation does not care to what end it is derived or used. 

But this is true of any craft or tool.  Rope making is a craft.   But ropes can be used to tie on load or can be used to strangle people.  The art of rope making is neutral with respect to the use of ropes.

[Brant Gaede]

51 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Discourses about scientific methodology are epistemological,  not metaphysical.  Metaphysics has been largely removed from modern physical science. 

Any well structured  discipline will have a corpus of meta-disciplinary statements.  The game of bridge not only has rules but it has literature on strategy which are -about- the game of bridge,  not the game itself. 

So, philosophy for you is metaphysical only?

Does this leave science without reality?

--Brant

Think Twice

[Brant Gaede]

50 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Discourses about scientific methodology are epistemological,  not metaphysical.  Metaphysics has been largely removed from modern physical science. 

Any well structured  discipline will have a corpus of meta-disciplinary statements.  The game of bridge not only has rules but it has literature on strategy which are -about- the game of bridge,  not the game itself. 

You, as usual, respond to a small fraction of what I write.

Unfortunately, I don't do intellectual charity.

--Brant

or fortunately

[anthony]

9 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

The methodology of science ...

 

...is a simple discipline, basically, is it not?

 Observation; Consider/question observations; Make a tentative hypothesis; Design an experiment testing the hypothesis; Test; Analyse results; Replicate experiment; modify hypothesis - repeat...

The procedure is straightforward.

It could be conjectured that concept formation is more effortful and as rigorous. For oneself, for your knowledge and life, not for posterity.

[BaalChatzaf]

5 hours ago, anthony said:

...is a simple discipline, basically, is it not?

Far from it.  Advances in particle physics have required the incorporation of Bayesian inference from very large bodies of data.  One such instance was the verification of the Higgs Boson  at CERN in 2012. It was not a simple matter of look and measure. 

The methodology of geological science is quite distinct from the methodology of gentics and bio-molecular  science  and the methods  of particle and field physics.

[BaalChatzaf]

10 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

So, philosophy for you is metaphysical only?

Does this leave science without reality?

--Brant

Think Twice

No. Epistemology, Ethics, Politics and Aesthetics are also part of philosophy.  But it has been classical metaphysical theories that retarded the development of modern science the most.

Plato taught us that our senses deceive us.   And Aristotle  taught us that what we experiences will lead us to the fundamental axioms of Nature.  But Aristotle  denied that matter was made up of much smaller bodies (atoms),  he denied the existence of a vacuum and he totally missed out on inertia. In Europe medieval scholars in the 5  th century made some observations that contradicted Aristotle's ideas on motion.(in particular John Philiponos)  Please see : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum#History_of_the_concept

Progress in the physical sciences has required the de-Aristotlization of the science. Natural Philosophy could not progress until all or most ties to Aristotle's metaphysics were severed.

 

[anthony]

31 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Far from it.  Advances in particle physics have required the incorporation of Bayesian inference from very large bodies of data.  One such instance was the verification of the Higgs Boson  at CERN in 2012. It was not a simple matter of look and measure. 

The methodology of geological science is quite distinct from the methodology of gentics and bio-molecular  science  and the methods  of particle and field physics.

Jargon. Just complex, advanced "tools" to do the observing and measuring.

[BaalChatzaf]

Just now, anthony said:

Jargon. Just complex, advanced "tools" to do the observing and measuring.

Written by a true ignoramus. You know sh*t  about modern science. 

[anthony]

15 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Written by a true ignoramus. You know sh*t  about modern science. 

LOL. Enough to know when I'm getting snowed by jargon  (and I had enough physics - far less now - to be employed as lab assistant at one of the leading Nuclear Research Institutes in the world - back then). 

[Brant Gaede]

2 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

No. Epistemology, Ethics, Politics and Aesthetics are also part of philosophy.  But it has been classical metaphysical theories that retarded the development of modern science the most.

Plato taught us that our senses deceive us.   And Aristotle  taught us that what we experiences will lead us to the fundamental axioms of Nature.  But Aristotle  denied that matter was made up of much smaller bodies (atoms),  he denied the existence of a vacuum and he totally missed out on inertia. In Europe medieval scholars in the 5  th century made some observations that contradicted Aristotle's ideas on motion.(in particular John Philiponos)  Please see : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum#History_of_the_concept

Progress in the physical sciences has required the de-Aristotlization of the science. Natural Philosophy could not progress until all or most ties to Aristotle's metaphysics were severed.

 

Aesthetics is not part of the Objectivist philosophy. Many think that because Rand wrote a lot about aesthetics it's part of Objectivism. They also think anything she wrote was Objectivism. And if she didn't write it it isn't.

There are two reasons it's not part of Objectivism: It's subjective and there is no logical connection to the four basic principles all linked by the philosophy's essential individualism--that is, the individual thinking and judging mind (metaphysics and epistemology) to rational self interest in ethics/morality to protection of individual rights in politics (freedom). It's objectifiable.

That's my take. This is not official Objectivism, whatever that is, insofar as I understand it. I differentiate between Objectivism and the philosophy of Ayn Rand. Thus I no longer call myself an "Objectivist" and it's for the same reason I don't call myself a "Randian." (A Randian, of course, doesn't have to study Objectivism much, but an Objectivist is implicitly obligated to study and re-study everything Rand wrote if not said over many decades. If it took that long for Leonard Peikoff to get on top of the subject, don't expect to be any faster.) I use Objectivism as I think Objectivism is and should be with the capital "O" because I like it even though the lower case is more justified for clarity.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

3 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Far from it.  Advances in particle physics have required the incorporation of Bayesian inference from very large bodies of data.  One such instance was the verification of the Higgs Boson  at CERN in 2012. It was not a simple matter of look and measure.

The ultimate verification is technology that works. What does Higgs Boson have to do with that?

It'll be interesting to find out future advances in particle physics as a result of this statistical technique.

In the meantime Bayesian inference applied to particle physics sounds to self referential for my taste. But my taste and particle physics doesn't matter a whit. Nor should it.

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

1 hour ago, Brant Gaede said:

The ultimate verification is technology that works. What does Higgs Boson have to do with that?

It'll be interesting to find out future advances in particle physics as a result of this statistical technique.

In the meantime Bayesian inference applied to particle physics sounds to self referential for my taste. But my taste and particle physics doesn't matter a whit. Nor should it.

--Brant

Finding the Higgs closed up the last known empirical gap in the Standard Model of Fields and Particles.  

Now we come to the Big One.  Incorporating gravitation into a unified theory.  

At this juncture physics is in two pieces.  One piece adequately accounts for the electromagnetic,  strong and weak forces.   Gravitation is handled (so far) by the General Theory of Relativity.  Since reality is all of a piece and our theories our not,   physics is far from complete.  And there are a lot of yet unanswered question.  

If you are willing to spend  an hour  look at this:  

Sean Carrol is a first class expositor  and his talk is aimed at intelligent non-specialist.  He does not dumb down the physics but he avoids most of the mathematical complexities.

[Brant Gaede]

If they want a unified theory why not drop explaining gravity by replacing gravity with a hypothetical?

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

3 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

If they want a unified theory why not drop explaining gravity by replacing gravity with a hypothetical?

--Brant

The idea is to have one theory explain all known interactions:  electromagnetic,  strong force, weak force and gravity.   The two interactions humans perceive the most are the electromagnet force, which hold  matter together and which makes  electromagnetic radiation (including visible light),  and gravitation which keeps us on the ground. Every kid learns gravitation the hard way when he falls and skins his knees. 

[Brant Gaede]

2 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

The idea is to have one theory explain all known interactions:  electromagnetic,  strong force, weak force and gravity.   The two interactions humans perceive the most are the electromagnet force, which hold  matter together and which makes  electromagnetic radiation (including visible light),  and gravitation which keeps us on the ground. Every kid learns gravitation the hard way when he falls and skins his knees. 

By replacing gravity as commonly understood with another idea--even an empty  set--one is left free of all the gravity intellectual baggage that might obscure instead of illuminate. (Of course, to gravity we'd likely return, but maybe with a better understanding.) You can get so invested in your ideas you get stuck. Might be gravity is just another expression of electromagnetic force? You'll say "No"?-- and I say, "I dunno." I'm always looking for a fresh perspective--on all subjects--and you seem to want certainty. (Old time Objectivists like Barbara Weiss liked to say, "Absolutely!")

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

33 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

By replacing gravity as commonly understood with another idea--even an empty  set--one is left free of all the gravity intellectual baggage that might obscure instead of illuminate. (Of course, to gravity we'd likely return, but maybe with a better understanding.) You can get so invested in your ideas you get stuck. Might be gravity is just another expression of electromagnetic force? You'll say "No"?-- and I say, "I dunno." I'm always looking for a fresh perspective--on all subjects--and you seem to want certainty. (Old time Objectivists like Barbara Weiss liked to say, "Absolutely!")

--Brant

The currently held view is that when we finally have a proper theory of gravitation it will be consistent with quantum theory.  The General Theory of Relativity  is of a completely different character than a quantum theory of gravitation.  Unfortunately all attempts at producing an internally consistent quantum like theory of gravitation without the plague of infinities and singularities, have failed.  So we are currently stuck with two incompatible theories.  On which describes gravitation very well and the other which describe the remain 3 forces (or interactions).  This bothers the physicists a great deal.  Reality is one thing  so a proper  theory of (physical)  reality should  be unitary and unified.  So finding one theory that describes are the known interactions is one of the current Holy Grails of physics.

 

[Brant Gaede]

1 hour ago, BaalChatzaf said:

The currently held view is that when we finally have a proper theory of gravitation it will be consistent with quantum theory.  The General Theory of Relativity  is of a completely different character than a quantum theory of gravitation.  Unfortunately all attempts at producing an internally consistent quantum like theory of gravitation without the plague of infinities and singularities, have failed.  So we are currently stuck with two incompatible theories.  On which describes gravitation very well and the other which describe the remain 3 forces (or interactions).  This bothers the physicists a great deal.  Reality is one thing  so a proper  theory of (physical)  reality should  be unitary and unified.  So finding one theory that describes are the known interactions is one of the current Holy Grails of physics.

It's a given we're stuck with two theories when it seems we ought to have one.

1) Why one instead of two?

2) Why gravity instead of QM?

3) Gravity doesn't explain QM. It seems a dead end.

4) QM might explain gravity. QM seems to be open to expansion. So, I layman say, ignore "gravity" and focus on QM.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

What did Einstein do but incrementally improve on Newton? He self-confessidly stood on Newton's shoulders. Was that phony modesty? I doubt it.

QM: nothing to do with Newton or Einstein. Right?

--Brant

my grandfather, Irving Newton Brant, was given Newton as a middle name because his parents thought he was collaterally descended from Isaac (who had no children)--even if true, it was crap; Newtons don't beget Newtons nor do the Newtons' brothers and sisters; Newtons stand alone--not sad and quite true