Why cosmology without philosophy is like a ship without a hull

[skepticalbip]

As I see it, philosophy is the seed for science. In attempting to understand a phenomena there is first the philosophical consideration of how it could work. This leads to a detailed hypothesis. The hypothesis is then tested for validity which leads to (depending on the test results) dropping the hypothesis and starting over, amending the hypothesis and retesting, or conditionally accepting the hypothesis.

The path of traditional philosophy starts with consideration of a phenomena, developing an explanation, argumentation in defense of the explanation.

At least, that is my take on the similarity and difference between the two disciplines.

 

[steve_bank]

People keep referring to philosophy as a kind of operative unified whole which it is not. All human creativity is a function of brain chemistry.. Creative imagination art, music, fiction.

The rot of the word is simply love of knowledge. There is no specific operative philosophy that one uses to accomplish a task.

Traditionally there was Doctor Of Laws, Doctor Of Medicine, and Doctor Of Philosophy. Philosophy was a catch all for everything but law and medicine. Both a physics and literature is PHD. To say science needs philosophy has no meaning.

As to a rudderless ship, we managed to reach the moon....

Philosophy is just not too important. I've known creationists who reject evolution but were outstanding engineers. Same with atheist with no particular philosophy. Science like anything else is n acquired skill. It is more complex than most but a skill none the less.

 

[bilby]

Forgive me but what is 'SI"?

SI is abbreviated from the French Système international (d'unités), and is the universal system of weights and measures employed by the entire world*.







*Apart from two minor nation states who refuse to adopt it, and who represent only around 5% of the world population. Recent moves by the Myanmar government to adopt SI, leave only Liberia and the USA outside the standard.

 

[steve_bank]

If philosophy is so great why can't you find a cure for AIDS or cancer using philosophy alone? I'll give a box filled with a thing to a philosopher and give another box with the same thing to a scientist. The philosopher can try to figure out what it is using philosophy but cannot open the box. The scientist can open the box look at what is inside, touch it, ect to find out what it is.

- - - Updated - - -

Forgive me but what is 'SI"?

You hit the nail on yjr hrad. Philosophy can not quantify reality with abstract thought.

Science is based on SI which is a set of unambiguous definitions like seconds and meters. Everything in science is expresed in SI units. SI ensures a kilogram is the everywhere.

https://www.physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/

 

[Jokodo]

If philosophy is so great why can't you find a cure for AIDS or cancer using philosophy alone? I'll give a box filled with a thing to a philosopher and give another box with the same thing to a scientist. The philosopher can try to figure out what it is using philosophy but cannot open the box. The scientist can open the box look at what is inside, touch it, ect to find out what it is.

- - - Updated - - -

Forgive me but what is 'SI"?

You hit the nail on yjr hrad. Philosophy can not quantify reality with abstract thought.

Science is based on SI which is a set of unambiguous definitions like seconds and meters. Everything in science is expresed in SI units. SI ensures a kilogram is the everywhere.

https://www.physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/

No, science is not "based on SI". Reporting quantitative results in SI is a useful convention most fields of science adhere to, though there remain pockets which prefer the  Centimetre–gram–second_system_of_units, and for certain purposes, even more esoteric systems remain in use (e. g. "solar masses per cubic parsec"). This doesn't make those fields any less scientific, it only forces us to multiply their numbers with a constant if we want to compare them to numbers from other fields.

SI is a tool, as I said a useful one, in order to make oneself understood and one's results usable by peers around the world. Other tools scientists use for this purpose are writing up their results in the English language even though, for most of them, it's not their native language, and distributing the result in a portable format like .pdf. Saying SI is the basis of science makes exactly as much sense as saying the English pronoun system or the ISO 32000-2 standard (defining the .pdf file format) are the basis of science.

 

[steve_bank]

If philosophy is so great why can't you find a cure for AIDS or cancer using philosophy alone? I'll give a box filled with a thing to a philosopher and give another box with the same thing to a scientist. The philosopher can try to figure out what it is using philosophy but cannot open the box. The scientist can open the box look at what is inside, touch it, ect to find out what it is.

- - - Updated - - -

Forgive me but what is 'SI"?

You hit the nail on yjr hrad. Philosophy can not quantify reality with abstract thought.

Science is based on SI which is a set of unambiguous definitions like seconds and meters. Everything in science is expresed in SI units. SI ensures a kilogram is the everywhere.

https://www.physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/

No, science is not "based on SI". Reporting quantitative results in SI is a useful convention most fields of science adhere to, though there remain pockets which prefer the  Centimetre–gram–second_system_of_units, and for certain purposes, even more esoteric systems remain in use (e. g. "solar masses per cubic parsec"). This doesn't make those fields any less scientific, it only forces us to multiply their numbers with a constant if we want to compare them to numbers from other fields.

SI is a tool, as I said a useful one, in order to make oneself understood and one's results usable by peers around the world. Other tools scientists use for this purpose are writing up their results in the English language even though, for most of them, it's not their native language, and distributing the result in a portable format like .pdf. Saying SI is the basis of science makes exactly as much sense as saying the English pronoun system or the ISO 32000-2 standard (defining the .pdf file format) are the basis of science.

You are just being argumentative. Every thinng in science and technology is ultimatly expressed in SI units, without exception. The soft philisophical debates show why, words are imprecise. Written words will refernce SI in one way or another.

Back to paraphrasing Kelvin, until you can express it with numbers it is not yet science and your knowldge is of a meager unsatisfactory kind.

Of course everybody doesn't walk around always speaking math. SI is unambiguous and not open to physical interpretaion.

 

[Jokodo]

No, science is not "based on SI". Reporting quantitative results in SI is a useful convention most fields of science adhere to, though there remain pockets which prefer the  Centimetre–gram–second_system_of_units, and for certain purposes, even more esoteric systems remain in use (e. g. "solar masses per cubic parsec"). This doesn't make those fields any less scientific, it only forces us to multiply their numbers with a constant if we want to compare them to numbers from other fields.

SI is a tool, as I said a useful one, in order to make oneself understood and one's results usable by peers around the world. Other tools scientists use for this purpose are writing up their results in the English language even though, for most of them, it's not their native language, and distributing the result in a portable format like .pdf. Saying SI is the basis of science makes exactly as much sense as saying the English pronoun system or the ISO 32000-2 standard (defining the .pdf file format) are the basis of science.

You are just being argumentative. Every thinng in science and technology is ultimatly expressed in SI units, without exception. The soft philisophical debates show why, words are imprecise. Written words will refernce SI in one way or another.

Back to paraphrasing Kelvin, until you can express it with numbers it is not yet science and your knowldge is of a meager unsatisfactory kind.

Of course everybody doesn't walk around always speaking math. SI is unambiguous and not open to physical interpretaion.

I'm not being argumentative. You made a category error, I pointed it out.

 

[steve_bank]

No, science is not "based on SI". Reporting quantitative results in SI is a useful convention most fields of science adhere to, though there remain pockets which prefer the  Centimetre–gram–second_system_of_units, and for certain purposes, even more esoteric systems remain in use (e. g. "solar masses per cubic parsec"). This doesn't make those fields any less scientific, it only forces us to multiply their numbers with a constant if we want to compare them to numbers from other fields.

SI is a tool, as I said a useful one, in order to make oneself understood and one's results usable by peers around the world. Other tools scientists use for this purpose are writing up their results in the English language even though, for most of them, it's not their native language, and distributing the result in a portable format like .pdf. Saying SI is the basis of science makes exactly as much sense as saying the English pronoun system or the ISO 32000-2 standard (defining the .pdf file format) are the basis of science.

You are just being argumentative. Every thinng in science and technology is ultimatly expressed in SI units, without exception. The soft philisophical debates show why, words are imprecise. Written words will refernce SI in one way or another.

Back to paraphrasing Kelvin, until you can express it with numbers it is not yet science and your knowldge is of a meager unsatisfactory kind.

Of course everybody doesn't walk around always speaking math. SI is unambiguous and not open to physical interpretaion.

I'm not being argumentative. You made a category error, I pointed it out.

It is my personal view of an aspect of science biased by my xperience. Nothing more than that. It was not uncommon for disputes to arise due to interpretations of words, resolved by numbers and math. And at that sometimes a dispute continued despite hard data and theory and demonstration

When you write mass, meter, energy, heat, second on paper it is SI. If you want to argue the SI with the base units of time, mass, and length along with the unit for work, energy, and heat are not foundational, take the last word.

 

[bilby]

I'm not being argumentative. You made a category error, I pointed it out.

It is my personal view of an aspect of science biased by my xperience. Nothing more than that. It was not uncommon for disputes to arise due to interpretations of words, resolved by numbers and math. And at that sometimes a dispute continued despite hard data and theory and demonstration

When you write mass, meter, energy, heat, second on paper it is SI. If you want to argue the SI with the base units of time, mass, and length along with the unit for work, energy, and heat are not foundational, take the last word.

That's a very long-winded way to say "I was wrong, and I apologize".

Indeed, it looks, to an unskilled observer, as though you are repeating your error.

SI is one of an infinitude of possible ways to formalize a system of measurements. It's special to humans, because it's the one we chose to use as a universal standard (despite which it is taking a very long time to bring the last few hold-outs into the fold); There will likely always be niche areas of science, particularly when dealing with the very large or very small, where other systems are more comfortable to use, and where SI will not be adopted for a very long time - if ever.

There is nothing fundamental or special about SI. It's a convenient set of standards for our circumstances. To say that SI is the foundation of science is to put the cart well and truly in front of the horse. The needs of science and engineering led to the eventual agreement to adopt SI. Not the other way around.

It has become sufficiently widespread that all students need to learn it very early on in their scientific education (although, outside the USA and Liberia, they will already know it well by the time they reach their first science classes), but that's not because it's special, important, or irreplaceable - it's just because it's been universally adopted. We all agree to use SI, just as we all agree to use base 10* for counting, because, of the infinite number of options, it is one of the more sensible approaches for humans to take.







* By the way, all number systems are base 10.

 

[steve_bank]

I'm not being argumentative. You made a category error, I pointed it out.

It is my personal view of an aspect of science biased by my xperience. Nothing more than that. It was not uncommon for disputes to arise due to interpretations of words, resolved by numbers and math. And at that sometimes a dispute continued despite hard data and theory and demonstration

When you write mass, meter, energy, heat, second on paper it is SI. If you want to argue the SI with the base units of time, mass, and length along with the unit for work, energy, and heat are not foundational, take the last word.

That's a very long-winded way to say "I was wrong, and I apologize".

Indeed, it looks, to an unskilled observer, as though you are repeating your error.

SI is one of an infinitude of possible ways to formalize a system of measurements. It's special to humans, because it's the one we chose to use as a universal standard (despite which it is taking a very long time to bring the last few hold-outs into the fold); There will likely always be niche areas of science, particularly when dealing with the very large or very small, where other systems are more comfortable to use, and where SI will not be adopted for a very long time - if ever.

There is nothing fundamental or special about SI. It's a convenient set of standards for our circumstances. To say that SI is the foundation of science is to put the cart well and truly in front of the horse. The needs of science and engineering led to the eventual agreement to adopt SI. Not the other way around.

It has become sufficiently widespread that all students need to learn it very early on in their scientific education (although, outside the USA and Liberia, they will already know it well by the time they reach their first science classes), but that's not because it's special, important, or irreplaceable - it's just because it's been universally adopted. We all agree to use SI, just as we all agree to use base 10* for counting, because, of the infinite number of options, it is one of the more sensible approaches for humans to take.







* By the way, all number systems are base 10.

Didn't say it was special, I said it was unambiguous.

All number systems are base 10? Base 2, base 8. You can calculate in any base. To represent real numbers required positional number systems. Base 8 roles over at 7, base 10 at 9. Do you mean positions are weighted by powers of 10?

Real number floating point operations in a computer are done in binary and are converted to base 10 for display and input.

Binary has the same issues as base 10. Representing fractional numbers is more difficult in binary. In binary it is not possible to exactly represent the fractional part of a real number, but with sufficient bits the error is without effect.

 

[steve_bank]

That's a very long-winded way to say "I was wrong, and I apologize".

Indeed, it looks, to an unskilled observer, as though you are repeating your error.

SI is one of an infinitude of possible ways to formalize a system of measurements. It's special to humans, because it's the one we chose to use as a universal standard (despite which it is taking a very long time to bring the last few hold-outs into the fold); There will likely always be niche areas of science, particularly when dealing with the very large or very small, where other systems are more comfortable to use, and where SI will not be adopted for a very long time - if ever.

There is nothing fundamental or special about SI. It's a convenient set of standards for our circumstances. To say that SI is the foundation of science is to put the cart well and truly in front of the horse. The needs of science and engineering led to the eventual agreement to adopt SI. Not the other way around.

It has become sufficiently widespread that all students need to learn it very early on in their scientific education (although, outside the USA and Liberia, they will already know it well by the time they reach their first science classes), but that's not because it's special, important, or irreplaceable - it's just because it's been universally adopted. We all agree to use SI, just as we all agree to use base 10* for counting, because, of the infinite number of options, it is one of the more sensible approaches for humans to take.







* By the way, all number systems are base 10.

Didn't say it was special, I said it was unambiguous.

All number systems are base 10? Base 2, base 8. You can calculate in any base. To represent real numbers required positional number systems. Base 8 roles over at 7, base 10 at 9. Do you mean positions are weighted by powers of 10?

Real number floating point operations in a computer are done in binary and are converted to base 10 for display and input.

Binary has the same issues as base 10. Representing fractional numbers is more difficult in binary. In binary it is not possible to exactly represent the fractional part of a real number, but with sufficient bits the error is without effect.

I can start a thread on digital computation if you like.

 

[bilby]

That's a very long-winded way to say "I was wrong, and I apologize".

Indeed, it looks, to an unskilled observer, as though you are repeating your error.

SI is one of an infinitude of possible ways to formalize a system of measurements. It's special to humans, because it's the one we chose to use as a universal standard (despite which it is taking a very long time to bring the last few hold-outs into the fold); There will likely always be niche areas of science, particularly when dealing with the very large or very small, where other systems are more comfortable to use, and where SI will not be adopted for a very long time - if ever.

There is nothing fundamental or special about SI. It's a convenient set of standards for our circumstances. To say that SI is the foundation of science is to put the cart well and truly in front of the horse. The needs of science and engineering led to the eventual agreement to adopt SI. Not the other way around.

It has become sufficiently widespread that all students need to learn it very early on in their scientific education (although, outside the USA and Liberia, they will already know it well by the time they reach their first science classes), but that's not because it's special, important, or irreplaceable - it's just because it's been universally adopted. We all agree to use SI, just as we all agree to use base 10* for counting, because, of the infinite number of options, it is one of the more sensible approaches for humans to take.







* By the way, all number systems are base 10.

Didn't say it was special, I said it was unambiguous.

All number systems are base 10? Base 2, base 8. You can calculate in any base. To represent real numbers required positional number systems. Base 8 roles over at 7, base 10 at 9. Do you mean positions are weighted by powers of 10?

Real number floating point operations in a computer are done in binary and are converted to base 10 for display and input.

Binary has the same issues as base 10. Representing fractional numbers is more difficult in binary. In binary it is not possible to exactly represent the fractional part of a real number, but with sufficient bits the error is without effect.

I can start a thread on digital computation if you like.

What, you think that your inability to comprehend a humorous aside qualifies you to say something useful about it?

That's hilarious.

By the way, base 2 (DEC) is base 10 (BIN).

Base 8 (DEC) is base 10 (OCT).

Base 16 (DEC) is base 10 (HEX).

EVERY base is base 10, when expressed in that base. It's an old joke, but one that requires a little thought. You evidently gave it too little. As usual.

You can calculate in any base, but when you do, you are always calculating in base 10*.

And I have likely forgotten more about digital computation than you have ever known. Drop the arrogance; You might learn something.





*Actually there are some esoteric exceptions, such as base 0. But it's close enough for humour.