Physicalism

[Speakpigeon]

I think a big problem is the definition of "exists" is hard to pin down when you're talking about the "non-physical," whatever that is.

It's hard to pin down for whatever we think exists. It's even hard to pin down for what we do know that it exists.

If we're talking about something physical like a rock, it's easy for us to agree what it means for that to exist.

It's easy because in our ordinary lives we don't need to commit ourselves to the existence of the rock as something "physical", i.e. you don't need to make assumptions on the nature of the rock to take it at face value.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Steve, you're making this way more complicated than it needs to be.

First of all, "absolute truth" is an oxymoron. In philosophy, an "absolute" is something that is what it is regardless of whether or not a sentient mind is around to consider it. So a rock is an absolute, but the idea of a rock is not an absolute.)

That's right but the funny thing is that many of the hardcore sciency types posting here use "absolute knowledge" to refer to the kind of knowledge they think couldn't exist at all, in opposition to the word "knowledge" applied to science. On this usage, science is knowledge, although a kind of knowledge that can somehow be wrong (false). Beat me.

"Truth" on the other hand is a label we attach to ideas. By its very definition, it is dependent upon the existence of a sentient mind to consider it (unless you're a Platonist, but can we ignore those idiots for a moment?), and thus can never be an absolute.

No. Truth, as we all understand the word, doesn't depend on any mind. If it is true that the Earth orbits the Sun then it would still be true if we weren't there to agree it's true. (And that has nothing to do with Platonists).

Furthermore, even for those who are confused enough to believe in the possibility of "absolute truth," it is generally accepted that this is an inherent limitation of evidence-based epistemologies. Evidence-based epistemologies can say something is definitely false, but can't say something is definitely true. With evidence-based epistemologies, you're mostly dealing with a gradation of truth anyway (e.g. idea X is more valid than idea Y because of evidence A, B, and C).

That's applicable to our observation of the material world, not to our subjective experience. I know pain whenever I am in pain.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

First of all, "absolute truth" is an oxymoron.

That's right

Oops! No, it's not right of course. "Absolute truth" is NOT an oxymoron (i.e. contradictory in terms), rather it's just that "absolute" is redundant here, i.e. it's a pleonasm. Truth can only be absolute or it's not truth at all, exactly like knowledge.

And sooorry that I should look as if I'm correcting everybody.
It's my life I guess.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

I suppose you could argue over the big bang. That fact that you have to make up stuff like "inflation" which does not conform to any known laws of physics to make it work means that you still have a theory that fits the evidence even though you have no evidence that inflation was even possible. Then there's cold, dark matter and dark energy. We have no evidence that they exist because they're cold and dark, but we infer their existence to make our theories work. But entities that are inferred are not scientific, they are metaphysical.

According to the pragmatic view of science, this is true of every scientific explanatory element (mass, energy, waves, positions, velocities, space, time, etc.). They are all metaphysical.

This is why, against Einstein, the non-realist view in science is much safer. Everything should be regarded as theoretical except actual observations (or measures) and then they are just that, observations. The table you are looking at is inferred if you think of the table as something that exists even when you're not looking. If you think of it as a mere observation of the physical world then you are safe from the charge of being metaphysical.

Of course, doing that goes against our nature, so to speak, but this is the sad state of affair we are in. And you can still argue that science is the best way to predic future observations.
EB

 

[boneyard bill]

On the contrary Newtonian mechanics wasfar from abandoned.


Newtonian, relativistic, and quantummechanics are used routinely with the limits of the models.


Newton’s laws of motion are used toput a probe to and on Mars.


Science is a map and we have no way toknow if the map accurately pictures reality. In that sense science ishighly circumstantial and made up.


To paraphrase Carver Meade, 'I do notknow if an electron exists, but I know I can do useful things withthe concept. That sums it it up for my perspective.

By the same token we'd have to say that the Ptolemaic system was not "abandoned" until the development of the computer. Indeed, amateur navigators may still be using it. There is a difference between an idea being useful and being accepted as truth. In fact, I dealt with these issues before you even raised them.

Yes, we don't know what an electron is, but there is still a difference between the lack of perfect knowledge and error.

 

[steve_bnk]

By the same token we'd have to say that the Ptolemaic system was not "abandoned" until the development of the computer. Indeed, amateur navigators may still be using it. There is a difference between an idea being useful and being accepted as truth. In fact, I dealt with these issues before you even raised them.

Yes, we don't know what an electron is, but there is still a difference between the lack of perfect knowledge and error.

We are not too far apart.


Astronomy uses the Earth as thereference point to define positions of objects in the sky. Right Ascension and Declination. The celestial sphere is a ball with the Earth at the center about which the universe revolves.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_ascension


I do not think sextants are obsolete. Back in the 90s I took a tour of a navy ship during one of our Sea Fairs.


On the bridge an officer explained while they use electronic navigation like GPS, they also take a daily position fix with a sextant.

 

[Underseer]

That's right but the funny thing is that many of the hardcore sciency types posting here use "absolute knowledge" to refer to the kind of knowledge they think couldn't exist at all, in opposition to the word "knowledge" applied to science. On this usage, science is knowledge, although a kind of knowledge that can somehow be wrong (false). Beat me.

Never heard "absolute knowledge" used that way. By anybody.

In science, nothing is ever regarded as true in the 100% sense. Not one single thing.

No. Truth, as we all understand the word, doesn't depend on any mind. If it is true that the Earth orbits the Sun then it would still be true if we weren't there to agree it's true. (And that has nothing to do with Platonists).

The idea that the Earth orbits the Sun is true, but if sentient beings did not exist, then that idea would not exist. The whole context of truth is meaningless in that case.

That's applicable to our observation of the material world, not to our subjective experience. I know pain whenever I am in pain.
EB

That's an internal observation. Unless you happen to be hooked up to the appropriate machine that can peer inside your body and at which parts of your brain are active, then I only have your word that you are in pain. Sure, you know that you are in pain, but those kinds of internal observations are largely meaningless except to people who are serious about meditation and certain kinds of neuroscientists.

 

[Wiploc]

In science, nothing is ever regarded as true in the 100% sense. Not one single thing.

You're saying that without knowing it absolutely? Or is your claim unscientific?

The idea that the Earth orbits the Sun is true,

That doesn't scan, doesn't seem to make sense or mean anything.

Unless you happen to be hooked up to the appropriate machine that can peer inside your body and at which parts of your brain are active, then I only have your word that you are in pain.

But you don't absolutely know that?

Sure, you know that you are in pain,

Wait, now we do know things?

but those kinds of internal observations are largely meaningless

But we don't know that they are largely meaningless?

except to people who are serious about meditation and certain kinds of neuroscientists.

Claims that we know we don't have knowledge are self-refuting.

 

[boneyard bill]

beero1000 writes:

False. Inflation does not violate any law of physics and is supported by empirical evidence. You can tell that because physicists haven thrown it out yet, which they would do for any hypothesis that contradicts physical evidence.

What empirical evidence supports it other than the fact that it is needed to explain the shape of the universe today? And what are the physics behind a big bang have another big bang shortly after the first?

False. There is a huge amount of evidence for dark matter. Gravitational lensing, cosmic background radiation, galaxy velocities and rotations, etc.

Which don't conform to our understanding of gravity, consequently we infer the existence of cold, dark matter rather than try to figure what's wrong with our understanding of gravity. Your "evidence" for cold, dark matter is simply a failure of our current theory of gravity.

False. Evolution makes easily falsifiable predictions about the fossil record, and in 150 years not one has been falsified.

I've already addressed this. You've ignored what I cited.

Evolution does not require that all characteristics are genetically caused. In fact, Darwin had no idea what genes actually were, and was just noting effects.

Of course, when we discuss "Darwinism" today it should be understood that we are talking about "Neo-Darwinism" the standard synthesis that was developed in the 1930's.

False. Energy, and heat especially, are easily transferable, while temperature depends on many other, separate factors.

Nonsense. Warming cannot be greater than the source of the warming. Of course, there are other factors that could be affecting the measurements, especially the ground measurements. Adjustments are made for those things. As I've already pointed out, the raw data shows no increase in temperature at all. In any case, the global warming theory predicts that tropospheric temperatures should be 30% higher than surface temperatures, and all of the computer models show a "hot spot" in the tropospheric temperature, but this hot spot does not appear in charts of the actual, observed data.

 

[Juma]

Truth can only be absolute or it's not truth at all, exactly like knowledge.

but that is no news. no one has knowledge or truth in that meaning. We have more or less well grounded information and can only validate it by how well it conforms with other information.

 

[beero1000]

What empirical evidence supports it other than the fact that it is needed to explain the shape of the universe today? And what are the physics behind a big bang have another big bang shortly after the first?

Inflation makes predictions that are supported by observation. That is empirical evidence. It explains the shape of the universe, the absence of magnetic monopoles, the polarization of cosmic background radiation, etc.

Which don't conform to our understanding of gravity, consequently we infer the existence of cold, dark matter rather than try to figure what's wrong with our understanding of gravity. Your "evidence" for cold, dark matter is simply a failure of our current theory of gravity.

That is nonsense. There are multiple and independent pieces of empirical evidence for the existence of dark matter and dark energy. Even if that wasn't true, your conclusion is that we should throw away general relativity? You're saying that our understanding of gravity, measured accurately to millionths of a percent near Earth is suddenly off by 1000% away from Earth?

I've already addressed this. You've ignored what I cited.

I haven't seen that post, but if it is the same quality as what I have seen, I am confident you are wrong. Again.

Nonsense. Warming cannot be greater than the source of the warming. Of course, there are other factors that could be affecting the measurements, especially the ground measurements. Adjustments are made for those things. As I've already pointed out, the raw data shows no increase in temperature at all. In any case, the global warming theory predicts that tropospheric temperatures should be 30% higher than surface temperatures, and all of the computer models show a "hot spot" in the tropospheric temperature, but this hot spot does not appear in charts of the actual, observed data.

Your claim was that the source of warming cannot warm slower than the system being warmed. That is trivially false, as seen any time someone puts ice in a drink. If you want to shift a goalpost, then at least admit that that's what you're doing.

 

[AdamWho]

Is this argument against physicalism the last refuge of the dualists?

 

[boneyard bill]

beero1000 writes:

Inflation makes predictions that are supported by observation. That is empirical evidence. It explains the shape of the universe, the absence of magnetic monopoles, the polarization of cosmic background radiation, etc.

Inflation didn't make those predictions. Inflation was invented to satisfy the observed phenomena. There is nothing in theory that leads to an inflation that would then be tested against observation. The observations dictated the inflation. It is nothing more than what the Ptolemaics did when they kept adding epicycles to their theory to account for new observations.

That is nonsense. There are multiple and independent pieces of empirical evidence for the existence of dark matter and dark energy. Even if that wasn't true, your conclusion is that we should throw away general relativity? You're saying that our understanding of gravity, measured accurately to millionths of a percent near Earth is suddenly off by 1000% away from Earth?

What are these "independent pieces of empirical evidence?" You have evidence of high energy activities at the center of galaxies, and they have been proposed to be caused by the event horizon of a black hole. But that is just a theory. It isn't evidence. I wouldn't claim that we should throw away general relativity because I don't know enough about it to critique one way or the other. I know that it is still questioned by some scientists and is not as well-established as special relativity in the scientific community. But you don't necessarily need to throw away general relativity to suggest that we may be relying too heavily on gravity to explain the structure and motions of galaxies. That, of course, is the critique offered by the electric universe theory. They don't say the theory of gravity is wrong, they're just saying we are trying to explain too much with gravity alone and the electric force is many times more powerful. And if you don't need dark matter, then you don't need dark energy. I'm saying this to tout the electric universe theory specifically, but to illustrate the point. There are other places to look for solutions than just to make up entities that are nowhere observed and then claim that they represent 96% of everything that exists! We need to apply Occam's Razor and quit making up entities and try to solve the problems with the tools that we know actually exist. The odds of dark matter and dark energy being anything but a dead end are pretty high.


I haven't seen that post, but if it is the same quality as what I have seen, I am confident you are wrong. Again.

Your claim was that the source of warming cannot warm slower than the system being warmed. That is trivially false, as seen any time someone puts ice in a drink. If you want to shift a goalpost, then at least admit that that's what you're doing.

What have you been drinking? You're the one shifting the goal post. First of all, I said warming cannot be greater than the source of the warming. If the sun gets warmer, the earth will get warmer, but it will not get warmer faster than the sun warms. When you put ice in a drink, the ice warms, but the water cools, and it warms because the water cools. The ice is not getting colder, but the troposphere is getting warmer. You don't have a parallel situation here at all.

 

[boneyard bill]

Is this argument against physicalism the last refuge of the dualists?

Have I argued against physicalism? I don't think so. I've simply argued against scientists who presuppose physicalism and claim that it is science. Science is an epistemological method. It isn't a metaphysical world view.

 

[J842P]

Have I argued against physicalism? I don't think so. I've simply argued against scientists who presuppose physicalism and claim that it is science. Science is an epistemological method. It isn't a metaphysical world view.

I think most practicing scientists have never really even thought about "physicalism." Most scientists are interested in some very specific part of their own field, whether it is the mating behavior of some obscure beetle or some family of chemical reactions, and don't really do much philosophizing about metaphysics.

 

[Underseer]

beero1000 writes:



Inflation didn't make those predictions. Inflation was invented to satisfy the observed phenomena. There is nothing in theory that leads to an inflation that would then be tested against observation. The observations dictated the inflation. It is nothing more than what the Ptolemaics did when they kept adding epicycles to their theory to account for new observations.
[...]

You're making a false distinction. Inflation explains the movement of galaxies, many details of the cosmic background microwave radiation, the WMAP images, and even the ratio of hydrogen to helium in those big gas clouds floating around the universe, and that's just a partial list. By contrast, the assumption of substance dualism doesn't lead to any predictions of any of those phenomena, nor does it produce any expectations about any evidence ever collected.

We have been doing this science thing for a long time now, and not once has the answer to any question turned out to be magic, so why would you be so upset about people ignoring the possibility of magic as an explanation for anything?

 

[Underseer]

If we can't stop looking for magic as a possible explanation now, when do you think it would be appropriate to stop looking for magic as a possible explanation? I mean, if this magical mystical non-physical stuff existed and interacted with anything in our universe, shouldn't we have found some sort of proof of it by now? How much longer does substance dualism have to fail (and it is failing so spectacularly in neuroscience right now that many neuroscientists will tell you flat out that it is a fact that there is no such thing as a soul) before we can stop anticipating it as a possible explanation for things?

 

[Keith&Co.]

I mean, if this magical mystical non-physical stuff existed and interacted with anything in our universe, shouldn't we have found some sort of proof of it by now?

 

[steve_bnk]

Is this argument against physicalism the last refuge of the dualists?

Shhesh. They let anybody on the new site...there goes the neighborhood.

 

[steve_bnk]

Have I argued against physicalism? I don't think so. I've simply argued against scientists who presuppose physicalism and claim that it is science. Science is an epistemological method. It isn't a metaphysical world view.

I worked with some outstanding engineers who were also creationists. I'd say one's philosophical paradigm does not necessarily have anything to do with how one practices science.

Like most skills science is a working skill learned part by wrote knowledge and part by experience.

Scientific enquiy is not driven by a philosophy or -isms..