Natural philosophy (split from: September Stundie Nominations)

[TheLoneBedouin]

Dumbest question ever asked...
What does a metaphysicist have in common with a physicist?

[Slayhamlet]

i thought it is for stupid posts that are wrong and laughable.

Nope. If that were true almost everything the prominent CTs on this site post would be a Stundie. Rwguinn made an assumption that turned out to be untrue. He was wrong in his overconfidence, but his assumption wasn't particularly absurd.

[Slayhamlet]

Dumbest question ever asked...

There's absolutely nothing dumb about Mackey's rhetorical question. The implied answer is, of course, "not much".

I know we shouldn't expect that much from a guy who can't even wrap his mind around the concept of center of gravity, but come on...

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Dumbest question ever asked...


I don't get it. Honestly. In what way was his question dumb? It's looks to me like a rhetorical question (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetorical_question).

[TheLoneBedouin]

I don't get it. Honestly. In what way was his question dumb? It's looks to me like a rhetorical question (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetorical_question).
The question is dumb because it implies that physics has nothing to do with metaphysics. As any theoretical physicist will tell you, physics is built on mathematics, which comes from philosophy. Basic metaphysical questions form the basis of the theoretical physics research program, e.g. "What is the nature of space and time"? Physics used to be called "natural philosophy" and was considered a branch of metaphysics. If anything, the word similarity should have been a huge clue to Mackey that the two fields were quite inseperable.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Physics used to be called "natural philosophy" [...]


Uhh, no... That's like saying birds used to be called dinosaurs.

If anything, the word similarity should have been a huge clue to Mackey that the two fields were quite inseperable.


Just like Scientology is "quite inseparable" from actual science, because of the "word similarity", right?

[Slayhamlet]

The question is dumb because it implies that physics has nothing to do with metaphysics. As any theoretical physicist will tell you, physics is built on mathematics, which comes from philosophy. Basic metaphysical questions form the basis of the theoretical physics research program, e.g. "What is the nature of space and time"? Physics used to be called "natural philosophy" and was considered a branch of metaphysics. If anything, the word similarity should have been a huge clue to Mackey that the two fields were quite inseperable.

You suck at this. Just give up.

[Hokulele]

You suck at this. Just give up.


No no, let him keep going. It is finally getting amusing.

[TheLoneBedouin]

Uhh, no... That's like saying birds used to be called dinosaurs.
Wrong.

natural philosophy
n.
The study of nature and the physical universe before the advent of modern science.

natural philosophy
Noun
Old-fashioned physics
Natural philosophy did not evolve into physics- it was merely an old-term for physics. The bedrock of modern physics is called Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica (eng. Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy).

Just like Scientology is "quite inseparable" from actual science, because of the "word similarity", right?
I said that it should have clued him in. Basic word roots generally hint at the meaning of words.

[Hokulele]

The question is dumb because it implies that physics has nothing to do with metaphysics. As any theoretical physicist will tell you, physics is built on mathematics, which comes from philosophy. Basic metaphysical questions form the basis of the theoretical physics research program, e.g. "What is the nature of space and time"? Physics used to be called "natural philosophy" and was considered a branch of metaphysics. If anything, the word similarity should have been a huge clue to Mackey that the two fields were quite inseperable.


Wrong. Mathematics in most cultures were completely separate from philosophy and metaphysics. Pretty much the only people who merged the two were the Greeks and their geometrical metaphors (the prime mover and all). This caused them no end of hardship when dealing with irrational numbers, zero, and infinity (as can be seen with the various paradoxes put forth by Zeno). The math than underlies most modern physics, algebra and calculus, had nothing to do with philosophy. Algebra was an early Islamic invention completely unrelated to "natural philosophy".

Natural philosophy did not evolve into physics- it was merely an old-term for physics. The bedrock of modern physics is called Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica (eng. Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy).


Completely and utterly wrong. Natural philosophy was a specific movement in Europe centered around determining the nature of God through the study of natural history. It was more concerned with shoehorning observations into the pre-formed concept that God exists, and its nature can be determined by examining what is found in nature. It is the exact opposite of the way science works, especially physics. There were no predictive possibilities in natural philosophy, and branches of sciences such as chemistry (from alchemy), astronomy (from astrology), and physics (pretty much invented from scratch) were split off specifically to get away from the metaphysical nonsense that was dragging it down. In fact, the development of science, particularly the contributions of Descartes and Newton, led to the Enlightenment where philosophy and metaphysics began to follow the lead of the "hard" sciences. Not to mention, your use of natural philosophy dismisses the development and advances in science developed outside of European thought.

So basically, you pretty much have everything backwards in your interpretation of R.Mackey's quote. Ironically enough, natural philosophy (the shoehorning of facts to fit an a priori conclusion) describes the truth movement much the way physics (tests and evidence used to support or disprove a hypothesis on the way to developing a theory) describes the sane people.

Regarding modern metaphysics, an oft-repeated quote from the Religion & Philosophy sub-forum here is, "Metaphysics is a pantload."

[TheLoneBedouin]

rong. Mathematics in most cultures were completely separate from philosophy and metaphysics. Pretty much the only people who merged the two were the Greeks and their geometrical metaphors (the prime mover and all). This caused them no end of hardship when dealing with irrational numbers, zero, and infinity (as can be seen with the various paradoxes put forth by Zeno). The math than underlies most modern physics, algebra and calculus, had nothing to do with philosophy. Algebra was an early Islamic invention completely unrelated to "natural philosophy".
Philosophy deals with fundamental questions in most fields of study, which is why there are many "philosophies of x".
Aristotle's basic metaphysical assumptions formed the basis of his logic. Aristotlean logic forms the basis of modern mathematics and science.
In cultures where there are different metaphysical assumptions, however, there are different logics (e.g. buddhist logic, non-classical logics, etc.).
Interesting that you say Algebra was an "islamic invention" and hence had nothing to do with natural philosophy. The rennaisance of Islamic culture occured precisely because the muslims discovered the works of the greeks, e.g. Aristotle, whose logic formed the basis of "natural philosophy".
You quote the entire paragraph:

Natural philosophy did not evolve into physics- it was merely an old-term for physics. The bedrock of modern physics is called Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica (eng. Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy).

But only talk about the first sentence. Do you dispute the second sentence?

[Hokulele]

Philosophy deals with fundamental questions in most fields of study, which is why there are many "philosophies of x".
Aristotle's basic metaphysical assumptions formed the basis of his logic. Aristotlean logic forms the basis of modern mathematics and science.


Oh hell no! The main problem with Aristotelian logic and metaphysics is that they are not at all quantitative. He is credited with originating the thought experiment, which was considered to be more accurate than actual measurements, observations, and experiments. It took literally over a thousand years before science managed to shed itself of that crippling limitation. For example, Aristotle claimed that men had more teeth than women and more massive objects fell faster than less massive ones. Since quantitative measurements were considered inaccurate, these hideous errors persisted in "scientific" thought for generations. His "common sense" type of thinking drastically inhibited scientific progress (sound familiar?).

In cultures where there are different metaphysical assumptions, however, there are different logics (e.g. buddhist logic, non-classical logics, etc.).
Interesting that you say Algebra was an "islamic invention" and hence had nothing to do with natural philosophy. The rennaisance of Islamic culture occured precisely because the muslims discovered the works of the greeks, e.g. Aristotle, whose logic formed the basis of "natural philosophy".


Not at all. Greek mathematics stalled precisely due to their philosophy and unacceptance of irrational numbers and infinity, as well as the devaluation of the experimental method. Islamic studies may have built on the Greek discoveries, but had very different goals in mind, so it would be as accurate to say that Islamic math and science owe as much if not more to Babylonian mathematics (decimal notation and numeric relationships) than Greek (which ironically enough, rejected many Babylonian concepts).

Stating that Aristotelian logic formed the basis of Algebra and "natural philosophy" (which have little to do with each other ideologically) would be like saying that oxygen forms the basis of water and carbon dioxide. Essentially true, but useless for linking the two in any causal sense.

You quote the entire paragraph:

But only talk about the first sentence. Do you dispute the second sentence?


Absolutely. "Natural philosophy" was a limited movement dealing solely with proving God through observation. No testing, no experimental method, and a rather extreme amount of cherry-picking and confirmation bias. The experimental method upon which modern physics is based is credited mainly to Galileo (the Italian scientist, not the poster here who operates under the delusion that he is the one and the same), who had nothing to do with what you are talking about. The mathematics used in natural philosophy has more to do with numerology than calculus.

So in conclusion, R.Mackey's statement is fundamentally true, even though it was probably meant in a rhetorical fashion.

[TheLoneBedouin]

Natural philosophy did not evolve into physics- it was merely an old-term for physics. The bedrock of modern physics is called Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica (eng. Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy).
Do you dispute the second sentence?
Absolutely. "Natural philosophy" was a limited movement dealing solely with proving God through observation.

Then you have no idea what you're talking about. The prinicipia is Newton's work on mechanics- a fundamental theory from which general relativity and all others are built. There is no mention of God in the principia. There is no mention of God in the wikipedia for "natural philosophy" or in its definition. From dictionary.com:

natural philosophy

noun
the science of matter and energy and their interactions; "his favorite subject was physics" [syn: physics]

[Hokulele]

Then you have no idea what you're talking about. The prinicipia is Newton's work on mechanics- a fundamental theory from which general relativity and all others are built. There is no mention of God in the principia. There is no mention of God in the wikipedia for "natural philosophy" or in its definition. From dictionary.com:


What the heck? Have you ever read the Principia? Hint, you might want to rely on Newton's words, not Wikipedia's.

Source (http://www.thenagain.info/Classes/Sources/Newton.html).

God and the Universe

This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. And if the fixed stars are the centers of other like systems, these, being formed by the like wise counsel, must be all subject to the dominion of One, especially since the light of the fixed stars is of the same nature with the light of the sun and from every system light passes into all the other systems; and lest the systems of the fixed stars should, by their gravity, fall on each other mutually, he hath placed those systems at immense distances from one another.


ETA: Mind you, a good deal of "real" science did come from natural philosophy, much as a good deal of modern chemistry came from alchemy. This is more in spite of the metaphysical nonsense than because of it.

ETA2: This quote from the very end of the Principia pretty much lays it out.

And thus much concerning God; to discourse of whom from the appearances of things, does certainly belong to Natural Philosophy.

[Wudang]

Sorry but until 1986 physics was taught as "Natural philosophy" at the University of Glasgow. Lord Kelvin was one of the holders of the chair of Professor of Natural Philosophy.

[Hokulele]

Well, we do know how forward thinking the Scots are...


(Ow, ow, that was a joke! I was only kidding!)

[Wudang]

Of course it was a joke, that's why I used my bluntest claymore.

[TheLoneBedouin]

What the heck? Have you ever read the Principia? Hint, you might want to rely on Newton's words, not Wikipedia's.

Source.

You are quoting from book III, which deals with the philosophical ramifications of Newton's work. He included it to placate the public!


To eliminate the possibility of the public seeing Isaac Newton’s principia as a defiance of God, he created the section Rules of Reasoning in Philosophy. The four rules he created were also a way of offering an explanation of the unknown phenomena in nature. Each rule offered by Isaac Newton serves a unique purpose of easing the minds of philosophers by broadly explaining why the phenomena of nature are unanswerable. The four rules go as follows:

Rule 1: We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.

Rule 2: Therefore to the same natural effects we must, as far as possible, assign the same causes.

Rule 3: The qualities of bodies, which admit neither intensification nor remission of degrees, and which are found to belong to all bodies within the reach of our experiments, are to be esteemed the universal qualities of all bodies whatsoever.

Rule 4: In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions inferred by general induction from phenomena as accurately or very nearly true, notwithstanding any contrary hypothesis that may be imagined, till such time as other phenomena occur, by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions.

In the Principia, he explains each rule in a more simplified form and/or gives an example to back up what the rule is claiming. The first rule in other words states that in nature nothing will ever happen without a deliberate and direct cause because God’s intelligent design works at optimal productiveness. The second rule states that if one cause is assigned to a natural effect, then the same exact cause must be assigned to any similar natural effects (e.g. the light of the fiery sun and the campfire). In short, when he exemplifies the third and fourth rules, he uses the rules to show and explain gravity and space. At the time, those two topics were of great mystery and Newton used his rules to explain every aspect. Also, he ends his explanation of the rules by incorporating God into everything. Newton states that everything is intelligently and perfectly created / designed by God. Newton goes into detail of how God’s intelligent design works on its own without any maintenance or assistance by God. By giving respect and ultimate credit to God, Newton appeased any and all people who would oppose his undeniable works.


You are missing the point. The dictionary lists physics as a synonym for natural philosophy precisely because Newton's work is the foundation of modern physics! Disputing this shows your foolishness- you won't get one professor of physics or history of science to agree with you (yes that is a challenge)!

Fundamentally, metaphysics are one's basic assumptions about reality. Any study of reality, including physics, deals with metaphysics. Any attempt to define objectivity, or what is real, is metaphysics! Hence the absolute absurdity of insinuating they have nothing to do with each other!

[Hokulele]

You are quoting from book III, which deals with the philosophical ramifications of Newton's work. He included it to placate the public!


Wikipedia as an authoritative source? Please.

You might want to read up on Robert Hooke and his battles with Newton. Even at the time, the concept that physical sciences are different from other studies can be seen in Hooke's writings regarding the Royal Society, of which he was a member and Curator.

To improve the knowledge of natural things, and all useful Arts, Manufactures, Mechanic practices, Engines and Inventions by Experiments (not meddling with divinity, Metaphysics, Morals, Politics, Grammar, Rhetoric or Logic).


Newton was very much into the whole "proving God through nature" which can be seen in several of his other works.

You are missing the point. The dictionary lists physics as a synonym for natural philosophy precisely because Newton's work is the foundation of modern physics! Disputing this shows your foolishness- you won't get one professor of physics or history of science to agree with you (yes that is a challenge)!


Considering it was several professors of history of science who taught most of this to me (that was my minor in college), you are still wrong. And please note, dictionaries document current common usage, not necessarily the history behind the terms. The are plenty of examples of words that no longer mean what they used to.

Since you seem to like to quote Wikipedia, how about Cambridge University Press?

Natural philosophy encompassed all natural phenomena of the physical world. It sought to discover the physical causes of all natural effects and was little concerned with mathematics. By contrast, the exact mathematical sciences were narrowly confined to various computations that did not involve physical causes, functioning totally independently of natural philosophy.


Newton was the first to attempt to fuse the two, which did lead to the birth of modern physics, but physics is not metaphysics, but a whole new field in and of its own. It was only when Newton's work is stripped of its attempts to prove "something greater" (i.e. its metaphysics), does it become the basis for physics.

Fundamentally, metaphysics are one's basic assumptions about reality. Any study of reality, including physics, deals with metaphysics. Any attempt to define objectivity, or what is real, is metaphysics! Hence the absolute absurdity of insinuating they have nothing to do with each other!


Umm, no. Modern metaphysics is concerned with the knowledge of knowledge, or knowledge of being and is usually broken into three categories, ontology, epistemiology, and ethics. As such, it cannot be subject to the experimental method that Newton himself promoted (following in the footsteps of Gallileo, discarding the Aristotelian method).

So once again, chemistry is basically alchemy with the metaphysical nonsense removed and mathematics added. Physics was created when Natural Philosophy was stripped of the metaphysical nonsense and mathematics added.

In other words, Cl1mh4224rd was accurate in his observation earlier in this thread.

[Mobyseven]

Here I come along to lay some smack down, and I see that Hokulele has already beaten me to the punch.

Can't I shoot down just a bit of rhetoric? Leave some for me!

[Hokulele]

Can't I shoot down just a bit of rhetoric? Leave some for me!


Go for it! I would love to see some arguments for or against from another point of view. Just see if you can do this without citing Wikipedia. ;)

[Phaedrus74]

<snip>

Umm, no. Modern metaphysics is concerned with the knowledge of knowledge, or knowledge of being and is usually broken into three categories, ontology, epistemiology, and ethics. As such, it cannot be subject to the experimental method that Newton himself promoted (following in the footsteps of Gallileo, discarding the Aristotelian method).

<snip>

Minor nitpick:

Metaphysics is generally taken to be synonymous with ontology.
Epistemology is not metaphysics, nor is ethics or political philosophy.

In reference to the question quoted in the OP the answer is obvious:

An academic degree.

Now, what do I win?

;)

[TheLoneBedouin]

Modern metaphysics is concerned with the knowledge of knowledge, or knowledge of being and is usually broken into three categories, ontology, epistemiology, and ethics.
P1:Ontology, a branch of metaphysics, is the study of categories of things that exist or can exist hypothetically.
P2:Logic is the study of the principle of valid inferences and is based upon (possibly arbitrary) ontological statements about what can or cannot exist (e.g. law of excluded middle).
P3:Physics is based on logic.
Conc:Physics is based on metaphysics.

O => M
L => O
P => L
P => M

QED

[calebprime]

obvious equivocation, logic to Logic.

[Mobyseven]

P1:Ontology, a branch of metaphysics, is the study of categories of things that exist or can exist hypothetically.
P2:Logic is the study of the principle of valid inferences and is based upon (possibly arbitrary) ontological statements about what can or cannot exist (e.g. law of excluded middle).
P3:Physics is based on logic.
Conc:Physics is based on metaphysics.

O => M
L => O
P => L
P => M

QED

Whoa, whoa. Whoa, whoa whoa. Wha--whoa.

I don't have a great deal of time to deal with this argument, and it's wrong in a great deal of ways. I think the easiest way to demostrate why it's wrong is to point out that you've got an unstated major premise - that the predicate 'is based on' is transitive (i.e. If A is based on B, and B is based on C then A is based on C.)

You've incorporated transitivity into your argument by assuming that you can translate the predicate 'is based on' into the material conditional. It should be self-evident that such a translation cannot be made (they are two different types of thing, one a predicate and the other a connective).

To give an example where the transitivity of this predicate fails (without equivocation of terms, too) I offer up an example from bartending:

P1: The Cosmopolitan cocktail is based on vodka.
P2: Vodka is based on grappa. (The history of vodka is a bit hazy, but most likely it started in Poland, based on the grappa spirit brought in from Italy.)

P1 and P2 do not imply -

C: The Cosmopolitan cocktail is based on grappa.

QEDrink.

[TheLoneBedouin]

Whoa, whoa. Whoa, whoa whoa. Wha--whoa.

I don't have a great deal of time to deal with this argument, and it's wrong in a great deal of ways. I think the easiest way to demostrate why it's wrong is to point out that you've got an unstated major premise - that the predicate 'is based on' is transitive (i.e. If A is based on B, and B is based on C then A is based on C.)

You've incorporated transitivity into your argument by assuming that you can translate the predicate 'is based on' into the material conditional. It should be self-evident that such a translation cannot be made (they are two different types of thing, one a predicate and the other a connective).

To give an example where the transitivity of this predicate fails (without equivocation of terms, too) I offer up an example from bartending:

P1: The Cosmopolitan cocktail is based on vodka.
P2: Vodka is based on grappa. (The history of vodka is a bit hazy, but most likely it started in Poland, based on the grappa spirit brought in from Italy.)

P1 and P2 do not imply -

C: The Cosmopolitan cocktail is based on grappa.

QEDrink.
That's because you're disguising two different meanings in the phrase "based on". The first use means "contains", while the second means "descends from".
If you interpret "based on" to mean "is related to", it is transitive.

[Hokulele]

And that is where you go wrong (as I have been arguing through this entire thread). Physics is not based on logic. What is logical about wave-particle duality? Entanglement? Chaos theory? Physics is based on the experimental method where a hypothesis is developed, supported by or often triggered by mathematics, and is designated a theory once experiments or observations have been made that the hypothesis is true. Theories are strengthened further when they are shown to have accurate predictive powers.

Logic alone was the basis of Aristotelian metaphysics, and is what often led him to grief when it came to predict real-world events. For example, it is logical that an object with greater mass would fall faster than an object with lesser mass due to gravity, as Aristotle believed. This is completely wrong, as Galileo demonstrated with his experiments with an inclined plane. This was later formalized in mathematics by Newton (although he had an agenda for doing so, his math was generally correct, later corrected further by SR). There are many other examples where physics is just not logical (remember, many equations have more than one solution).

In fact, this confusion between logic, experimental methods, metaphysics, physics, and common sense is why so many CTists are so dreadfully wrong. Hence R.Mackey's original comment. It is not at all a Stundie, but a keen insight into a mind with little or no training in science or history.

[TheLoneBedouin]

Physics is not based on logic.
:jaw-dropp
What is logical about wave-particle duality?
Why is it logical? Simple- light produces a diffraction pattern in double-slit experiments much like a wave, while the photoelectric effect requires discrete units of light (photons). Therefore, light is both wave-like and particle-like.
L => W
L => P
L => P * W
Becuase science deals with causality, it reduces to logic.
Physics is based on the experimental method where a hypothesis is developed, supported by or often triggered by mathematics, and is designated a theory once experiments or observations have been made that the hypothesis is true. Theories are strengthened further when they are shown to have accurate predictive powers.
Without logic there would be no theories- just meaningless data. Logic is how one uses the data to construct theories.
Logic alone was the basis of Aristotelian metaphysics, and is what often led him to grief when it came to predict real-world events. For example, it is logical that an object with greater mass would fall faster than an object with lesser mass due to gravity, as Aristotle believed. This is completely wrong, as Galileo demonstrated with his experiments with an inclined plane. This was later formalized in mathematics by Newton (although he had an agenda for doing so, his math was generally correct, later corrected further by SR). There are many other examples where physics is just not logical (remember, many equations have more than one solution).
That example is not logic- it is an unsupported assumption. Logic deals with inference- it does not mean intuitive conceptions of reality!

In fact, this confusion between logic, experimental methods, metaphysics, physics, and common sense is why so many CTists are so dreadfully wrong. Hence R.Mackey's original comment. It is not at all a Stundie, but a keen insight into a mind with little or no training in science or history.
With all due respect, if you believe what you wrote in your last post- that mind is yours!

[Hokulele]

That example is not logic- it is an unsupported assumption.


Rather like your assumption that physics is based on logic.

All of your examples are post hoc reasoning showing how a logic statement can be constructed for physical topics (although not always correctly, as Mobyseven has shown).

What is illogical about stating that objects with greater mass fall faster? Based on the known effect of mass on force and work, a logic statement can be constructed that would reach the wrong conclusion. Only when you know by calculation and experiment, do you know what the correct answer should be. A similar issue arose when Einstein first realized that his solutions for General Relativity implied a universe that was either contracting or expanding. Logic alone led him to the wrong conclusion and the creation of the cosmic constant.

With all due respect, if you believe what you wrote in your last post- that mind is yours!


Logically, maybe so. By observation and experiment, clearly not.

[Mobyseven]

That's because you're disguising two different meanings in the phrase "based on". The first use means "contains", while the second means "descends from".
If you interpret "based on" to mean "is related to", it is transitive.

No, I'm not using different meanings - in both cases I'm using the term basis to refer to the fundamental item without which the object could not exist. You can easily see the misunderstanding of the first meaning when by substituting 'cointreau', 'cranberry juice' or 'lime juice' into the first sentence - a Cosmopolitan contains all those ingredients, but is not based on all of them.

The second meaning is less obviously wrong, but again 'based on' in that context does not mean 'descends from' - 'based on' means as I wrote above.

That's really besides the point though - that's just the example I used, not the actual argument itself. If we interpret "based on" to mean "is related to", there is still no guarantee of transitivity - you've stated that, but you've yet to actually show that it is the case. You've substituted one two place predicate for another, but you haven't demonstrated transitivity. Moreover, I can definitely think of situations where "is related to" is not transitive:

A is related to B (A is B's mother)
B is related to C (C is B's father)
A is NOT related to C (C and A are divorced)

If you wish to establish transitivity, it is up to you to define terms and present your case.