FREE TAPATALK APP

Stone Island · 7th December 2007, 11:15 AM

Axioms by Robert G. Brown of Duke University Physics Department:

Why Science is ********:

Quote:

Yes, in a section or three we'll get around to religion, and show how religion, especially organized religion, is philosophical ******** however useful or useless you might perceive of it to be from a socio-memetic or ethical point of view. However if I did religion right now I'd be accused of being a Godless Scientistic, and since I'm actually a Godful Scientist I figured I might as well smash my own dolly before smashing anybody else's.

So just what is this ``Science'' thing of which I'm about to speak? I'm so glad you asked.

Sefarst · 7th December 2007, 11:41 AM

He seems to just be restating the same basic criticisms of axioms people have always had. An axiom by definition though is self-evident and needs no proof, so I'm not sure on what grounds he wants to challenge causality.

You could argue that the universe is ultimately self-referential and that using self-referential proofs are not per se fallacious. Then you could justify scientific induction using induction. Our beliefs have a certain inertia to them. If an object in motion will stay in motion unless acted upon, is it irrational to assume the same about other patterns I observe in nature? If I've watched the sun rise a thousand times, shouldn't the inertia of my thinking require I assume the same for tomorrow unless given a reason not to? But he could just argue that I'm using induction to transpose a concept of physics over cognitive science, so this example would be meaningless.

Foster Zygote · 7th December 2007, 12:52 PM

Brown's point is actually near the bottom. My bolding.

Quote:

When I've ignored the Laws of Science in the past (assuming that my memory is in fact real and the past I remember actually happened in some approximation) I've gotten really badly hurt myself and remember the pain. My brainstem remembers something of this pain and automatically compensates for my movement while I walk without falling down. Humans are apparently programmed to learn Laws of Nature - fire burns, falling hurts, disobeying parents causes bottom-swats - from pain and experience as anyone who has ever been a child or raised a child should well remember.

So for no good reason (if ``good'' is supposed to mean ``rational'') I choose to believe these unprovable axioms as my own Prime Axioms, Axioms with a capital A. Or perhaps for every good reason. Perhaps they are a statement that is true but unprovable, just like this book. Mind you, they aren't enough - I add a few more axioms that also seem to work, at least for me - but they are most of what is needed to provide me with what appears to be a basis for conditional knowledge of the Universe, which is as good as it gets.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos · 7th December 2007, 02:21 PM

Yuperoonies, any system of scientific epistemology is going to have axioms.

~~ Paul

Kopji · 8th December 2007, 11:23 PM

I think that philosophers are mostly really swell.

When I read this kind of stuff it makes me wish there were a Nobel Prize for philosophy. Each year we could watch the results of philosophers competing for a large cash prize.

lenny · 9th December 2007, 08:32 AM

Originally Posted by Kopji

When I read this kind of stuff it makes me wish there were a Nobel Prize for philosophy.

so why isn't there one?

philosophy's Nobel fate was not woven from the same fabric as mathematics, was it?

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos · 9th December 2007, 12:07 PM

Originally Posted by Kopji

When I read this kind of stuff it makes me wish there were a Nobel Prize for philosophy. Each year we could watch the results of philosophers competing for a large cash prize.

With which they might buy ...

But wait, first the joke. What is the cheapest department to run at a university?

Well, pure math is the second cheapest. All they need are paper, pencils, and wastebaskets.

Philosophy is the cheapest department: They don't need any wastebaskets.

~~ Paul

7th December 2007, 11:15 AM	#1
Stone Island Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 1,003	Why Natural Philosophy (Science) is ****** Axioms by Robert G. Brown of Duke University Physics Department: Why Science is *****: Quote: Yes, in a section or three we'll get around to religion, and show how religion, especially organized religion, is philosophical* ******** however useful or useless you might perceive of it to be from a socio-memetic or ethical point of view. However if I did religion right now I'd be accused of being a Godless Scientistic, and since I'm actually a Godful Scientist I figured I might as well smash my own dolly before smashing anybody else's. So just what is this ``Science'' thing of which I'm about to speak? I'm so glad you asked.

7th December 2007, 11:41 AM	#2
Sefarst Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 1,238	He seems to just be restating the same basic criticisms of axioms people have always had. An axiom by definition though is self-evident and needs no proof, so I'm not sure on what grounds he wants to challenge causality. You could argue that the universe is ultimately self-referential and that using self-referential proofs are not per se fallacious. Then you could justify scientific induction using induction. Our beliefs have a certain inertia to them. If an object in motion will stay in motion unless acted upon, is it irrational to assume the same about other patterns I observe in nature? If I've watched the sun rise a thousand times, shouldn't the inertia of my thinking require I assume the same for tomorrow unless given a reason not to? But he could just argue that I'm using induction to transpose a concept of physics over cognitive science, so this example would be meaningless.
Sefarst Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 1,238

7th December 2007, 12:52 PM	#3
Foster Zygote Dental Floss Tycoon Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Between the pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge Posts: 14,459	Brown's point is actually near the bottom. My bolding. Quote: When I've ignored the Laws of Science in the past (assuming that my memory is in fact real and the past I remember actually happened in some approximation) I've gotten really badly hurt myself and remember the pain. My brainstem remembers something of this pain and automatically compensates for my movement while I walk without falling down. Humans are apparently programmed to learn Laws of Nature - fire burns, falling hurts, disobeying parents causes bottom-swats - from pain and experience as anyone who has ever been a child or raised a child should well remember. So for no good reason (if ``good'' is supposed to mean ``rational'') I choose to believe these unprovable axioms as my own Prime Axioms, Axioms with a capital A. Or perhaps for every good reason. Perhaps they are a statement that is true but unprovable, just like this book. Mind you, they aren't enough - I add a few more axioms that also seem to work, at least for me - but *they are most* of what is needed to provide me with what appears to be a basis for conditional knowledge of the Universe, which is as good as it gets**.
	__________________ It looks just like a Telefunken U47... You'll love it. Last edited by Foster Zygote; 7th December 2007 at 12:55 PM.

7th December 2007, 02:21 PM	#4
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Nap, interrupted. Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: a little toolshed Posts: 18,631	Yuperoonies, any system of scientific epistemology is going to have axioms. ~~ Paul
	__________________ Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. ---Susan Ertz RIP Mr. Skinny

9th December 2007, 08:32 AM	#6
lenny Muse Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Oxford Posts: 755	Originally Posted by Kopji When I read this kind of stuff it makes me wish there were a Nobel Prize for philosophy. so why isn't there one? philosophy's Nobel fate was not woven from the same fabric as mathematics, was it?
	__________________ All theorems are true. All models are wrong. All data are inaccurate. What are we to do? Dubito Ergo Sum "And oftentimes, to win us to our harm, the instruments of darkness tell us truths, win us with honest trifles, to betray'us in deepest consequence." Banquo

8th December 2007, 11:23 PM	#5
Kopji Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Mogollon Rim Posts: 7,710	I think that philosophers are mostly really swell. When I read this kind of stuff it makes me wish there were a Nobel Prize for philosophy. Each year we could watch the results of philosophers competing for a large cash prize.

9th December 2007, 12:07 PM	#7
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Nap, interrupted. Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: a little toolshed Posts: 18,631	Originally Posted by Kopji When I read this kind of stuff it makes me wish there were a Nobel Prize for philosophy. Each year we could watch the results of philosophers competing for a large cash prize. With which they might buy ... But wait, first the joke. What is the cheapest department to run at a university? Well, pure math is the second cheapest. All they need are paper, pencils, and wastebaskets. Philosophy is the cheapest department: They don't need any wastebaskets. ~~ Paul
	__________________ Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. ---Susan Ertz RIP Mr. Skinny Last edited by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos; 9th December 2007 at 12:07 PM.