tjohnson

You cannot define 'furniture' by pointing at tables, chairs, beds, etc. I didn't try to define "furniture" by pointing. I said "furniture" had referents one can point to. I think it is odd -- not a contradiction -- but the use of 'ostensive definition' is fairly common. You can't point to "a furniture", there is no such thing. 'Furniture' refers to a generalization, abstraction, class, etc. that exists only in our brain.

You cannot define 'furniture' by pointing at tables, chairs, beds, etc. In fact, 'ostensive definition' is a contradiction of terms, since it is not a definition at all, it is a physical act! It may be useful for a someone learning the names of things in a new language but that about it.

But even our own eyes (and senses) must be regarded as instruments. The scientific instruments we have created merely enhance our own "built-in" ones. There is nothing wrong with the idea of 'causation' but there is something wrong with the idea of "one cause => one effect". Instead, science has shown us that there are many variables involved and it is better to speak about about 'states' and the conditions required to move from one state to another. The idea of simple "cause and effect" is simplistic and outdated.

I would like to know what "the philosophical relevance of experimental results in physics" might mean. Does it mean, for example, that if physics has established that what we refer to as 'space' and 'time' is actually better described as 'space-time' then philosophers (laypeople) should quit speculating about space and time as if they were separable? If a layperson cannot understand this then they can learn the math and study the equations to convince themselves if they want to but it has no bearing on what physicists do. Actually, many people write books that are fairly non-technical for the interested layperson but to suggest that a layperson (philosopher ignorant of physics) can somehow direct a scientist's work is ridiculous. Science is self-correcting, if there is some major "epistemological corruption" it will be exposed and corrected eventually.

I think you mean sarcastic posts.

Very interesting. See this site for a multitude of articles about vitamin and mineral therapies for all kinds of health problems.

Korzybski would call this, "the formulation of problems; the tentative proposing of theories to solve them", structure. He maintains this is the content of all our knowledge. Its obvious that words are not what they represent so what is the connection between them? It is structure. Our world (reality) has a certain structure and our knowledge (to be useful) must have a similar structure. The map=>territory analogy is extremely useful in this regard. Our language is like a map and it makes certain structural assertions, for instance Boston is north of New York. On a map you can see this structure visually whereas in language it requires more processing by the brain. Hence the expression "a picture is worth a thousand words".

It seems both Korzybski and Popper were aware of the undefinability of ALL our terms. Korzybski didn't use the expression 'infinite regress' but simply noted that if you attempt to define every single term you will eventually define in circles.

What I think there's no question of is that what you demonstrate with that statement is your persistence in having a dumb view of what philosophy is. Try doing physics in a culture that doesn't value freedom of inquiry and the advancement of knowledge and without the scientific methodology which is a *philosophical* viewpoint on the universe, and see how far you get. Ellen I don't know what you are talking about.

OMG, that is hilarious! It's astounding that someone can actually believe this.

Most philosophy.... is vague talk.... Ugh... how can you do this year after year? Babble babble babble babble. It's easy.

The "intellectual tool" is loosely referred to as 'scientific method'. Most philosophy is just a bunch of vague talk since it doesn't have to adhere to any methodology.

I agree with George on this. It is unfortunate that some physicists feel the need to do this but they are only human. Brilliant people can make ridiculous statements at times but that doesn't take anything away from their accomplishments. But the deeper issue is the value of philosophy vs physics, and in that regard there is no question who the winner is.

LMAO, very good.

Two questions. 1. Was there ever a time in the history of physics when there wasn't controversy about some theories? 2 Will there ever be a time when there isn't? Also, theories or "laws" do not hold without exception, there are always some limits to their applicability. This does not mean they are wrong or "false", merely limited, and when new data emerges then new theories do as well. I think this may be what is meant by 'contextually certain'.

No need to be confused Brant. Just imagine a magician's tricks. That is all that's going on in the world of modern physics, at least as it pertains to experiments such as this. If you looked at what they were doing in enough detail, you'd see the trick, but you see, that's part of the trick: they've got a lot of arcane and intimidating stuff to distract you from seeing what is really going on. And so you keep feeding them your tax dollars and get nothing in return but your own amazement at how incomprehensibly miraculous the universe is. Shayne I think the problem is that it is incomprehensible to you, and so you think its incomprehensible to everyone.

Note the scare quotes I put around "explain everything." You are using "explain" in a different sense than the one used here. No theory can explain in your sense of the term "explain". So no, you didn't get that from me or from George, you got it from yourself. Shayne Now i remember why I haven't posted here for many months. GS: Look at the spinning dial. You are getting deeper and deeper relaxed. Deeper and deeper relaxed. GS, you will now forget what you have remembered. You will now forget what you have remembered.... --Brant I was never here LOL, always did like your wit.

Note the scare quotes I put around "explain everything." You are using "explain" in a different sense than the one used here. No theory can explain in your sense of the term "explain". So no, you didn't get that from me or from George, you got it from yourself. Shayne Now i remember why I haven't posted here for many months.

It is not the purpose of theories to "explain everything." Where did *you* get this idea? Shayne I got that idea here:

It is when a theory doesn't explain fully that we know another cause is operating and thus go look for it. If we just said "oh, it's inexplicable" then science would never advance. We keep going until we have explained everything in a non-contradictory manner. Unless you're religious. Then you have to stop somewhere in order to preserve a small corner in your mind for your faith to go. Are you perchance religious? What I am trying to get at is that there is never a single cause => single effect relation in reality. There are always other factors involved and we will never be able to account for them all. No theory will ever fully explain everything. Where did you get this idea?

I agree that this analysis of "cause and effect" is rather silly when applied to everyday events, like dropping a glass on the floor. It is rather a technical issue and it does become important in advanced physics. But just for example, suppose you have an experiment set up and you repeat it 99% of the times with the same result but then on the 1% of the time you get a different result? You have set the initial conditions as accurately as possible and have observed the "cause and effect" many times yet sometimes it doesn't happen. So, you said "Even controlled scientific experiments cannot reproduce exactly the same conditions. This is neither possible nor necessary to ascertain cause and effect. " Does the "cause and effect" relation you observed only work 99% of the time? Or is there some other factor at work that you are unaware of? If so, what does this do to your "cause and effect" relation?

It is fairly obvious. QM is used as propaganda to discredit reason, which discredits its corollary, freedom. If physics were put on a rational foundation, the one that Newton had begun, then that would be a massive force for changing the mind of the common man, to turning his mind to reason and freedom instead of faith and force. Therefore, QM must be used to discredit man's rational faculty as much as possible, and no one with any rational explanation for it can ever be allowed to get a PhD or hold a job. Shayne That is one huge conspiracy theory there! I'm afraid I'm gonna have to go ahead and disagree with that.

First of all, what was in the drink? I hope it wasn't good scotch. The thing about "cause and effect" is that it is impossible to reproduce the exact same conditions twice. Have you ever dropped a glass on the floor and be surprised to see that it didn't break? There are so many factors or variables that we ignore or don't know about that we can never say with 100% sure that a single cause is responsible for a single effect. Also, there always exists an interval of time between cause and effect, even if its a small interval, and the possibility that some other factor can be involved in this interval exists. I think this is primarily a semantic issue and, although there is an orderly universe out there, we shouldn't confuse order of events with causation. Why not simply say "when these conditions are met then this happens (usually)".

What does politics have to do with QM? I can see some relation to global warming theories, but not QM.

It's a redundancy. All theories are causal theories. They all identify why something happens. And you do not think QM attempts to explain why things happen at the subatomic level?