5 foundational assumptions of science

[lightgigantic]

dragon

no it is not. There are different perceptions of reality. We are following laws of universe because we are within it, we can not define that which is outside ourselves because we are limited by our own laws.

Even when we will discover all that is to learn of our universe...we will not be able to know other universes.

An analogy would be:


A pencil would not be able to _____ of a .

you also don't know if all such outside universes are contingent on a greater universe

 

[draqon]

dragon


you also don't know if all such outside universes are contingent on a greater universe

well it would not be, would it? A Universe is that which follows a set of rules of reality. Something totally different...would be simply impossible to experience for us.

 

[lightgigantic]

well it would not be, would it? A Universe is that which follows a set of rules of reality. Something totally different...would be simply impossible to experience for us.

hence you wouldn't know ....

 

[draqon]

hence you wouldn't know ....

its impossible to prove or disprove. But a possibility of such does in a way limit #5 assumption.

 

[lightgigantic]

its impossible to prove or disprove. But a possibility of such does in a way limit #5 assumption.

to say the least, science fiction might work out of limiting #5, but science does not

 

[Enmos]

well it would not be, would it? A Universe is that which follows a set of rules of reality. Something totally different...would be simply impossible to experience for us.

No the universe is ALL there is. Thus EVERYTHING there is is a part of the universe.. such is the definition.

 

[lightgigantic]

Tyler

The initial post is nothing different than Cartesian skepticism. Yes, if you want to continuously say "but why? why? why? why?" you will never find an ultimate reason that a a sense-driven organism can hold besides senses to believe what comes from his senses.

hence relativity (subjectivity) is the sporting ground of empiricism and rationalism despite the best attempts to dress it up as objectivity

In science we say; "Yup, so if you don't believe in it then don't use it. We'll keep making our medication, houses, cars, computers, air conditioners, recording devices, medical tech, etc. and if you don't believe in your senses then you're more than welcome to not use our stuff."

so if a person also disbelieves in the nature of the soul and the means to realize eternal life (as opposed to having any objective knowledge for the non-existence of such things), then it also stands to reason that they won't use it and suffer accordingly, with or without their medication, houses, cars, computers, air conditioners, recording devices, medical tech, etc

 

[lightgigantic]

glaucon

I'm not sure who Kitty Ferguson might be,

I'm not sure who you might be - nonetheless discourse remains possible ....

but the major problem here is that these propositions are being classified as "assumptions".

This is incorrect.

The 5 foundational propositions listed are more properly identified as premisses, and as such, they require no justification of their own beyond their utility in the development of an argument.

ok - so call them premises if it makes you more comfortable

still it remains that if the premise of science (as advocated by JamesR in the OP) is that if something cannot be evidenced it is a myth, what does that make science when its very foundational premises cannot be evidenced without begging the question?

 

[glaucon]

glaucon

I'm not sure who you might be - nonetheless discourse remains possible ....

Hey LG, nice to see you're still here.

And now....

I was simply pointing out here, in an albeit apparently too subtle a way, the Ad Verecundiam here....

ok - so call them premises if it makes you more comfortable

still it remains that if the premise of science (as advocated by JamesR in the OP) is that if something cannot be evidenced it is a myth,
...

Note that this would be the OP's operational definition, not necessarily the 'standard definition'.

...
what does that make science when its very foundational premises cannot be evidenced without begging the question?

You miss the point.

It's not question-begging if it is admitted that certain premisses are granted a priori and are required for an inductive argument. To satisfy your stringent requirements, one would have to establish the absolute necessity of a proposition, which cannot be done.

 

[lightgigantic]

Hey LG, nice to see you're still here.

And now....

I was simply pointing out here, in an albeit apparently too subtle a way, the Ad Verecundiam here....





Note that this would be the OP's operational definition, not necessarily the 'standard definition'.




You miss the point.

It's not question-begging if it is admitted that certain premisses are granted a priori and are required for an inductive argument. To satisfy your stringent requirements, one would have to establish the absolute necessity of a proposition, which cannot be done.

then it seems you are more in line with the predecessor of this thread, which was a cross between discussions I was having with JamesR

 

[iceaura]

JamesR was claiming that

,(the nature of science is to) determine that things for which there is no evidence of existence are mythical

if there is no evidence for the foundations of science (save and except for calling upon another foundation, which in turn is bereft of evidence - ie begging the question), what would that make science then?

Maybe it would make science something that doesn't begin with philosophical foundations before proceeding.

“ Can you show that 1, 2, and 3 can be independently denied, for example? I doubt it. ”

unless there is evidence for something, it can certainly be denied

But you are claiming these things are "foundations" - they seem to be aspects of one thing, to me, neither independent nor foundational. And there seems to me to be quite a bit of evidence for them, anyway.

Do you really think there is no evidence for, say, the existence of agreement between the principles of logical deduction and the nature of cause/effect explanation? Or do you deny that there is evidence for causes and effects?

Just as one example.

“ I also think that 4 iand 5 are slippery, definition dependent, and not necessarily necessary assumptions. ”

if the universe wasn't objective, there would be no need for peer reviewing (peer reviewing is an aspect of #2)

Why not? Are you saying that only an objective universe can be mistakenly described?

if the universe isn't unified than physics (which is mostly an aspect of #1) is out the window

Baloney. A given Physics would just be restricted to its region of validity. It need not stop working in its valid region, just because some other region had different laws.

“ So in general, the project seems to be off on the wrong foot. What is its motive? ”

all in the OP - 5 foundations of science (for which there is no evidence)

But they don't appear to be "foundations" in the sense required, and there does appear to be evidence for them. So?

 

[lightgigantic]

iceaura
“

Originally Posted by light
JamesR was claiming that

,(the nature of science is to) determine that things for which there is no evidence of existence are mythical

if there is no evidence for the foundations of science (save and except for calling upon another foundation, which in turn is bereft of evidence - ie begging the question), what would that make science then?
”
Maybe it would make science something that doesn't begin with philosophical foundations before proceeding.

if something doesn't have philosophical foundations, there is no scope for proceeding with assessments of true/correct

“
Originally Posted by light
“ Can you show that 1, 2, and 3 can be independently denied, for example? I doubt it. ”

unless there is evidence for something, it can certainly be denied
”
But you are claiming these things are "foundations" - they seem to be aspects of one thing, to me, neither independent nor foundational. And there seems to me to be quite a bit of evidence for them, anyway.

Do you really think there is no evidence for, say, the existence of agreement between the principles of logical deduction and the nature of cause/effect explanation? Or do you deny that there is evidence for causes and effects?

the evidence of cause and effect draws on the first and fifth foundation - in this way the search for evidence independent of these 5 always begs the question

“
“ I also think that 4 iand 5 are slippery, definition dependent, and not necessarily necessary assumptions. ”

if the universe wasn't objective, there would be no need for peer reviewing (peer reviewing is an aspect of #2)
”
Why not? Are you saying that only an objective universe can be mistakenly described?

unless the universe is objective, there would be no need to discriminate between objective and subjective descriptions of it
“

if the universe isn't unified than physics (which is mostly an aspect of #1) is out the window
”
Baloney.

A given Physics would just be restricted to its region of validity. It need not stop working in its valid region, just because some other region had different laws.

I don't think you understand

can you indicate a region of validity of physics that is outside the universe?

“
“ So in general, the project seems to be off on the wrong foot. What is its motive? ”

all in the OP - 5 foundations of science (for which there is no evidence)
”
But they don't appear to be "foundations" in the sense required, and there does appear to be evidence for them. So?

if you cannot illustrate how there is a foundation anything greater than these five in science, it certainly does appear that they are foundations
and furthermore, if you cannot evidence any of these foundations with out begging the question by taking shelter of one of the other 4, its not clear how there is evidence for them

 

[iceaura]

if something doesn't have philosophical foundations, there is no scope for proceeding with assessments of true/correct

The presence of foundations doesn't mean you know what they are or have them described well.

the evidence of cause and effect draws on the first and fifth foundation

Circular with respect to the first "foundation", meaningless with respect to the fifth. Observation of cause and effect, and the creation of a corresponding system of logic for describing them, does not depend on a priori assumptions about the rationality of the universe.

unless the universe is objective, there would be no need to discriminate between objective and subjective descriptions of it

So one way to discover whether the universe has objective existence would be to discriminate between objective and subjective descriptions of it, and see which kind works better. You don't need to assume an objective universe - you can deduce the likelihood of one.

can you indicate a region of validity of physics that is outside the universe?

I don't have to. All I have to do is indicate a region of validity of physics that is inside the universe, and we have valid physics worth doing regardless of the "unity" of the rest of it.

if you cannot illustrate how there is a foundation anything greater than these five in science, it certainly does appear that they are foundations

Unless you can show that science does not and cannot proceed without assuming each of those five, independently, then I have no reason to take them as "foundations" at all.

It seems to me that all of them except the fifth are demonstrated, not assumed, in the doing of science, and that the demonstration is partial and contingent - they could be false, in significant degree, without much affecting science in general. In fact the assertion from recent scientific work is that the fourth one is false, the third one needs careful attention, the first one is confused, and so forth.

 

[lightgigantic]

iceaura

“
Originally Posted by light
if something doesn't have philosophical foundations, there is no scope for proceeding with assessments of true/correct
”
The presence of foundations doesn't mean you know what they are or have them described well.

such is the sorry state of one who has poor foundations

“
Originally Posted by light
the evidence of cause and effect draws on the first and fifth foundation
”
Circular with respect to the first "foundation", meaningless with respect to the fifth. Observation of cause and effect, and the creation of a corresponding system of logic for describing them, does not depend on a priori assumptions about the rationality of the universe.

“it would be very difficult to establish a relationship of cause and effect that is independent of rational logic

Originally Posted by light
unless the universe is objective, there would be no need to discriminate between objective and subjective descriptions of it
”
So one way to discover whether the universe has objective existence would be to discriminate between objective and subjective descriptions of it, and see which kind works better. You don't need to assume an objective universe - you can deduce the likelihood of one.

once again, such an endeavour is only fruitful on the assumption that the universe is objective
“

Originally Posted by light
can you indicate a region of validity of physics that is outside the universe?
”
I don't have to. All I have to do is indicate a region of validity of physics that is inside the universe, and we have valid physics worth doing regardless of the "unity" of the rest of it.

it remains unclear how working with a portion of the universe could bear any merit unless it was unified
to say the least, einsteins endeavour to unlock a unified field theory was not a mere academic exercise
“

Originally Posted by light
if you cannot illustrate how there is a foundation anything greater than these five in science, it certainly does appear that they are foundations
”
Unless you can show that science does not and cannot proceed without assuming each of those five, independently, then I have no reason to take them as "foundations" at all.

given that you cannot establish one without relying on one or two of the others, I thought it was clearly established already

It seems to me that all of them except the fifth are demonstrated, not assumed, in the doing of science, and that the demonstration is partial and contingent - they could be false, in significant degree, without much affecting science in general. In fact the assertion from recent scientific work is that the fourth one is false, the third one needs careful attention, the first one is confused, and so forth.

whatever, but since the evaluation (or re-evaluation) of these foundations can not proceed an inch in any direction without relying on some other foundation, they clearly exist as 5 unprecedented foundations of science

 

[iceaura]

it would be very difficult to establish a relationship of cause and effect that is independent of rational logic

But not nearly so difficult to choose a rational logic that aligned poorly with cause and effect.

The one is matched to the other by preference.

once again, such an endeavour is only fruitful on the assumption that the universe is objective

Assuming the consequent is generally considered bad form - see "rational logic", above.

it remains unclear how working with a portion of the universe could bear any merit unless it was unified to say the least,

Few of the benefits we have gained from our current study of physical law would disappear if it turned out that different physical laws held elsewhere.

given that you cannot establish one without relying on one or two of the others, I thought it was clearly established already

That isn't given - and if it were, would argue still for my observation that these "foundations" are not even independent: one can derive some from others.

It seems to me that all of them except the fifth are demonstrated, not assumed, in the doing of science, and that the demonstration is partial and contingent - they could be false, in significant degree, without much affecting science in general. In fact the assertion from recent scientific work is that the fourth one is false, the third one needs careful attention, the first one is confused, and so forth. ”

whatever, but since the evaluation (or re-evaluation) of these foundations can not proceed an inch in any direction without relying on some other foundation, they clearly exist as 5 unprecedented foundations of science

Uh, hello ?

 

[lightgigantic]

iceaura

Originally Posted by light
it would be very difficult to establish a relationship of cause and effect that is independent of rational logic
”
But not nearly so difficult to choose a rational logic that aligned poorly with cause and effect.

The one is matched to the other by preference.

its not a binary exchange between foundations - there are five to alternate from
thus it becomes difficult to establish cause and effect without an accessible universe
it becomes difficult to establish an accessible universe without etc etc

“
Originally Posted by light
once again, such an endeavour is only fruitful on the assumption that the universe is objective
”
Assuming the consequent is generally considered bad form - see "rational logic", above.

even assuming the universe is rational has assumptions behind it (see above)
“

Originally Posted by light
it remains unclear how working with a portion of the universe could bear any merit unless it was unified to say the least,
”
Few of the benefits we have gained from our current study of physical law would disappear if it turned out that different physical laws held elsewhere.

depends entirely on the nature of how it is disunified - its quite clear that a little bit of tampering with gravity could be quite catastrophic to say the least
“

Originally Posted by light
given that you cannot establish one without relying on one or two of the others, I thought it was clearly established already
”
That isn't given - and if it were, would argue still for my observation that these "foundations" are not even independent: one can derive some from others.

such as

“
Originally Posted by light
It seems to me that all of them except the fifth are demonstrated, not assumed, in the doing of science, and that the demonstration is partial and contingent - they could be false, in significant degree, without much affecting science in general. In fact the assertion from recent scientific work is that the fourth one is false, the third one needs careful attention, the first one is confused, and so forth. ”

whatever, but since the evaluation (or re-evaluation) of these foundations can not proceed an inch in any direction without relying on some other foundation, they clearly exist as 5 unprecedented foundations of science
”
Uh, hello ?

If you are working with findings in quantum physics that the fourth one is false you have some severe explaining to do (but save your breath - there's no consensus even amongst physicists and as brilliant as it may be, sciforums will probably never be a medium for cutting the mustard)
and saying the third one needs careful attention doesn't merit much since it rings of a lack of consensus from the out set

thus my "whatever, ...... (etc etc)"

 

[iceaura]

it would be very difficult to establish a relationship of cause and effect that is independent of rational logic
”
But not nearly so difficult to choose a rational logic that aligned poorly with cause and effect.

The one is matched to the other by preference. ”

its not a binary exchange between foundations - there are five to alternate from
thus it becomes difficult to establish cause and effect without an accessible universe
it becomes difficult to establish an accessible universe without etc etc

That response does not answer the point of the quote.

Rational logic is deliberately matched to patterns observed. It doesn't have to be that way. The usefullness of it is determined from evidence.

even assuming the universe is rational has assumptions behind it (see above)

The matching of observation to rationality is a consequence and a determination, not an assumption, in the first place.

Few of the benefits we have gained from our current study of physical law would disappear if it turned out that different physical laws held elsewhere. ”

depends entirely on the nature of how it is disunified -

Yes. So some disunifications are possibilities that do not fundamentally threaten science. So an assumption of universal unity is not a foundation of science. It is a discovery, for which there is evidence.

its quite clear that a little bit of tampering with gravity could be quite catastrophic to say the least

Or not, depending. We might be doing the physics and other science of a local pocket, and due to make discoveries about gravity in distant parts or times of the universe.

If you are working with findings in quantum physics that the fourth one is false you have some severe explaining to do (but save your breath - there's no consensus even amongst physicists

No explanation is necessary - if there is no consensus among physicists in such a matter, yet they continue to do recognizable and useful science, that removes the fourth "foundation".

It seems to me that all of them except the fifth are demonstrated, not assumed, in the doing of science, and that the demonstration is partial and contingent - they could be false, in significant degree, without much affecting science in general.

 

[qwerty mob]

These are 5 foundational assumptions of science [...]

A trite "ambiguation" of "science;" the sort which "believers" revel in.

The essence of all Science (capital "s") and it's constituent Branches is the Scientific Method; the "SM" contains no "assumptions" whatsoever, and deals only with investigating objective phenomena. Science, properly practiced, is an organized method of inquiry, not an "Institution of Truth"-- that is the purview of religious, confused, (and/or) uneducated persons.

 

[DeepThought]

the SM contains no assumptions whatsoever and deals only with investigating objective phenomena.

LOL.

Qwerty,

Please define objective.

 

[lightgigantic]

A trite "ambiguation" of "science;" the sort which "believers" revel in.

The essence of all Science (capital "s") and it's constituent Branches is the Scientific Method; the "SM" contains no "assumptions" whatsoever, and deals only with investigating objective phenomena. Science, properly practiced, is an organized method of inquiry, not an "Institution of Truth"-- that is the purview of religious, confused, (and/or) uneducated persons.

hardly.



Science, as we have already discovered, is outrageously demanding. It demands that it is not simply a way of explaining certain bits of the world, or even the local quarter of the universe within telescopic range. It demands that it explains absolutely everything.
- Benjamin wooley

hence the realistic agenda of science is

Out of the multitude of our sense experiences we take, mentally and arbitrarily, certain repeatedly occuring complexes of sense impression ... and we attribute to them a meaning the meaning of bodily objects.

which indicates you have a few issues at hand if you want to discuss objectivity ....