Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
Yeah but this is not logic, it's physics.
Did Einstein overthrow Newton?
- Thread starter Pinball1970
- Start date
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
Physics.
UG was applied Biology.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Just to put another 50p in the slot, heh heh, here is a very funny short YouPube video by Sabine Hossenfelder, ranting, and I mean ranting, to the extent of using the F word, about the iniquity of mathematical physics that has, in her opinion, become a cottage industry unmoored from observation - and thus from reality:
I am reminded of Baggotty Jim's book "Farewell to Reality" in which he makes similar criticisms of the direction theoretical physics has been taking in recent years.
(I've just finished Carlo Rovelli's book on white holes, as it happens, so not everything she says about him was gobbledegook to me, though a fair amount still was, e.g. the stuff about the angular momentum operator.)
I do rather like Sabine. She would be fun to have to dinner, I think.
I am reminded of Baggotty Jim's book "Farewell to Reality" in which he makes similar criticisms of the direction theoretical physics has been taking in recent years.
(I've just finished Carlo Rovelli's book on white holes, as it happens, so not everything she says about him was gobbledegook to me, though a fair amount still was, e.g. the stuff about the angular momentum operator.)
I do rather like Sabine. She would be fun to have to dinner, I think.
axocanth
Registered Senior Member
Because if you don't, you're liable to be found -- and very quickly found -- to be contradicting yourself, to be defending an overall position that is incoherent.
Perhaps you recall exchemist describing his "nuanced" position to us a few weeks ago in another thread. "Nuanced" is not the word, incoherent is. See post #95 here.
The "Stage Theory of Theories" - Cause for Concern?
In other words, you'll have to stop "shutting up and calculating" and assert something about physical reality that can be appraised for truth or falsity.
sciforums.com
It's all very well for certain people to whine about philosophers overthinking all this, scientists just get on with job, scientists just "shut up and calculate", scientists don't speak of their theories being "true" or "false" -- real world science is far too messy for such neat dichotomies that only navel-gazing philosophers are naive enough to apply . . . and so on, and so forth.
Ok, so you're instrumentalist. Splendid.
Two seconds later and we are told by the very same people that such-and-such a theory has been falsified. How that to which the terms "true" and "false" do not apply can be falsified (i.e. shown to be false) is left as another homework exercise.
Three seconds later and we're told by the same people of the explanatory power of such-and-such a theory. To an instrumentalist, scientific theories are mere tools, and tools don't explain anything. Ask your electric drill.
It's not just philosophers who "overthink" these things, of course; the finest scientists do to. And I'll bet you an exotic holiday in Easterhouse that you will not catch Albert Einstein or David Bohm, say, making a fool of himself, contradicting himself left right and center, and defending an incohere . . . oops, I mean "nuanced" position.
P.S. Easterhouse is the kind of place where you go to laughing and leave in stitches. I don't miss Glasgow much lol.
Last edited:
axocanth
Registered Senior Member
See above. Do you think scientific theories are "truth-apt" -- do the terms "true" and "false" apply?
(Psst, you've already told us about various theories being "falsified")
If yes, please continue . . .
Do you think Newtonian mechanics is true or false?
Do you think general relativity is true or false?
axocanth
Registered Senior Member
The Bear Necessities of Instrumentalism
-------------------------------------------
Put another way, if you opt for the "Shut up and calculate" approach, you'd be well advised to do just that: shut up.
But they never do! And as soon as a person opens his mouth and begins to wax lyrically on what science is really all about, all hell breaks loose.
From my experience, it tends to be the ones who are most ignorant of the philosophy of science who are most hostile towards it (Go figure! -- cf. "I've never been to Canada but it sucks anyway."), and thus are most prone to tie themselves up in incoherent knots as soon as they forget their own commitment to the "SUAC" maxim of instrumental taciturnity.
I've never understood this hostility; it's as if they perceive philosophers of science as enemies of science, as if philosophers are somehow trying to undermine the scientific enterprise itself. What philosophers try to do -- as they invariably try to do -- is bring some measure of clarity and understanding to the proceedings. The hostility, presumably, is a consequence of high profile scientists in recent decades (DeGrasse Tyson, Krauss, et al) telling them that philosophy of science is a load of bollocks.
Of course, these are the same people who inevitably proceed to engage in philosophy themselves, immediately making complete and utter fools of themselves. For example, Niel deGrasse Tyson -- the "Great Communicator" -- explains below (post 456) his stunning conclusion that scientific truths have the remarkable property of being true (Gasp!) . . . no matter what (Double gasp!), which is exactly analogous to -- and exactly as informative as -- being told that bears are ursine no matter what. Medic! I need oxygen!
This distinguishes scientific truths, the Great Communicator proceeds, from other kinds of truth, which might be true or might not be true. That's like saying the "ursinity" of scientific bears can be relied upon, whereas the ursinity of bears outside of science . . . well, you just never know. Thank heavens for Yogi's chemistry set!
People giggle at this kind of stuff, ya know. Well, except for the 600 million admirers who bought the book -- including my lovely niece. Sigh!
The "Stage Theory of Theories" - Cause for Concern?
Now compare with what the Wiki page specific to constructive empiricism says, and notice the inconsistency: It sounds like there is some confusion among philosophers of science - or perhaps among those who wrote the relevant wikipedia entries - as to whether "constructive empiricism" is or is...
sciforums.com
Last edited:
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
True / false in the purist sense belong in the realm of mathematics and logic not science.
Sure you can say something is just true as opposed to false in science but you are doing a disservice to how Theories are developed and missing the applications, domain and approximations.
I could say "mostly" true. How much? 70%? How much science do we learn reading that? What insight do we get with that approach?
Feynman was a genius, he was asked about something being true and he said (paraphrasing)
"We do not prove things true in science, we prove things less false."
So this line of enquiry for me does not take us anywhere, reading the text books, working the problems is the way get insight.
In terms of falsify? Yes you can do that. We may mean different things when we say that but for instance let us use poor Newton again.
Indications are he thought time was fixed, his quote and Exchemist explanation still leave me a little confused on that but let us say he did.
We can do a time dilation experiment using a fast aircraft and atomic clocks and falsify that claim.
Miasma is the other example I used which had been around for a long time.
Bad air does not make you sick, the rotting corpse is certainly not going to brighten your day but you will not Cholera from a smell or get plague from marsh gas, these things are false, they have been falsified.
Last edited by a moderator:
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
I have not read this book because I could not get past the four whole pages (including a diagram) of baseball. "Life's Grandeur," J J Gould 1996.
Even skipping past that chapter called "A base ball primer for British readers," the next chapter goes right into the ten commandments, "Cat on a hot tin roof" and ends the paragraph on baseball again.
However he does mention falsification on page 68 regarding Horse Evolution and linear gradualism.
The Shubin he cites is "Your inner fish" Neil Shubin.
Even skipping past that chapter called "A base ball primer for British readers," the next chapter goes right into the ten commandments, "Cat on a hot tin roof" and ends the paragraph on baseball again.
However he does mention falsification on page 68 regarding Horse Evolution and linear gradualism.
The Shubin he cites is "Your inner fish" Neil Shubin.
axocanth
Registered Senior Member
As an example of the kind of thing I've been alluding to in the last three posts, consider this post by exchemist in the "Is the Theory of Punctuated Equilibrium . . . ? " thread, post #84. I present this with no intention of ridiculing another member, but purely for illustrative purposes. I've de-emphasized the irrelevant parts.
Does anyone get a sense that there's something incongruous about first describing the Newtonian model as being "utterly different" from general relativity, and then, just a few sentences later, describing the latter as an "approximation" of the former? How can something be both totally different from another thing and an approximation thereof?
Does anyone get the sense that it's almost as if exchemist is speaking a different language in the first and second paragraphs?
Well, that's precisely what has happened! The first paragraph is framed in the language of scientific realism; the second in the jargon of instrumentalism.
In the first paragraph, the Einsteinian model is presented as a radically different description of reality from the Newtonian model, with a very different story to tell about space and time, and obviously two models of reality which are "utterly different" from one another cannot possibly both be giving us a picture of the "very nature" of reality that is true, or even approximately so. Moreover, if one places one's confidence in Einstein's model of reality, one must -- of necessity -- reject Newton's as hopelessly misguided, albeit science of the highest caliber. After all, it's "utterly different", our universe is nothing like that.
Einstein might have written this himself! The two theories are "profoundly different" inasmuch as they have very different tales to tell about unobservable physical reality.
In the following paragraph, however, allegiance to scientific realism is forgotten, and we're now told there really wasn't much of a change at all. Anyone who speaks of an "overthrow" (e.g. a scientific realist -- as exchemist was a few sentences ago) is engaging in wanton histrionics, perhaps to sell a few more books. The Newtonian model is now conceived of as a tool, a tool which is far easier to work with, and, though not quite as efficacious in its predictions as Einstein's tool, it approximates these predictions and nonetheless gets the job done.
This is now Ernst Mach talking. The reason the two models are very similar is that they are asserting nothing about unobservable reality. They are not telling a story about space, time, and gravity at all. They're just tools, and tools assert nothing. Not unlike dead men, scientific models/theories tell no tales (about how our universe is).
Well, what's wrong with that? Can't a man wear an instrumentalist hat on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays and his realist hat on other days of the week? It's a free country! Can't he be bilingual?
If it pleases him, he can also assert that Paris is the capital of France on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays and assert that Paris is not the capital of France on other days of the week.
What he cannot do, however, on pain of contradiction and inconsistency, is assert both that scientific theories/models purport to describe reality and that they do not (they're just tools). Because if he does, he may find himself telling his readers both that X is little different from Y and that X is utterly different from Y.
Does anyone get a sense that there's something incongruous about first describing the Newtonian model as being "utterly different" from general relativity, and then, just a few sentences later, describing the latter as an "approximation" of the former? How can something be both totally different from another thing and an approximation thereof?
Does anyone get the sense that it's almost as if exchemist is speaking a different language in the first and second paragraphs?
Well, that's precisely what has happened! The first paragraph is framed in the language of scientific realism; the second in the jargon of instrumentalism.
In the first paragraph, the Einsteinian model is presented as a radically different description of reality from the Newtonian model, with a very different story to tell about space and time, and obviously two models of reality which are "utterly different" from one another cannot possibly both be giving us a picture of the "very nature" of reality that is true, or even approximately so. Moreover, if one places one's confidence in Einstein's model of reality, one must -- of necessity -- reject Newton's as hopelessly misguided, albeit science of the highest caliber. After all, it's "utterly different", our universe is nothing like that.
Einstein might have written this himself! The two theories are "profoundly different" inasmuch as they have very different tales to tell about unobservable physical reality.
In the following paragraph, however, allegiance to scientific realism is forgotten, and we're now told there really wasn't much of a change at all. Anyone who speaks of an "overthrow" (e.g. a scientific realist -- as exchemist was a few sentences ago) is engaging in wanton histrionics, perhaps to sell a few more books. The Newtonian model is now conceived of as a tool, a tool which is far easier to work with, and, though not quite as efficacious in its predictions as Einstein's tool, it approximates these predictions and nonetheless gets the job done.
This is now Ernst Mach talking. The reason the two models are very similar is that they are asserting nothing about unobservable reality. They are not telling a story about space, time, and gravity at all. They're just tools, and tools assert nothing. Not unlike dead men, scientific models/theories tell no tales (about how our universe is).
Well, what's wrong with that? Can't a man wear an instrumentalist hat on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays and his realist hat on other days of the week? It's a free country! Can't he be bilingual?
If it pleases him, he can also assert that Paris is the capital of France on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays and assert that Paris is not the capital of France on other days of the week.
What he cannot do, however, on pain of contradiction and inconsistency, is assert both that scientific theories/models purport to describe reality and that they do not (they're just tools). Because if he does, he may find himself telling his readers both that X is little different from Y and that X is utterly different from Y.
Last edited:
axocanth
Registered Senior Member
Pinball, in your second last post, semantic issues (whether something has a truth value T/F at all) are being confused with epistemological issues (ascertaining that truth value).
So if a theory can be falsified, it must have a truth value, right? You cannot falsify a hammer, for example. Hammers have no truth value.
Those theories which have been falsified have a truth value of false, right? Perhaps the most obvious cases are theories that posit entities that do not exist (e.g. miasma, Santa Claus).
Do you believe all scientific theories are false? If not, what truth value do the others have? (Whether we can know this is another matter -- a matter of epistemology).
There are some people who hold that scientific theories do not have truth values inasmuch as they assert nothing -- same as a hammer. These people are the abovementioned instrumentalists.
Clearly you're not one of them. You believe that scientific theories can be false. And any kinds of things (e.g. statements, beliefs) which are candidates for falsity are also candidates for truth.
You speak in other places of the "fact" of evolution. Right? Is that not just to say that evolution is true? Or is evolution a fact that is 70% true? (whatever that means).
Have you been doing a disservice to science? Have you been perpetrating the heinous crime of logic?
Damn your Vulcan logic! I'm a doctor, Jim, not a mathematician.
So if a theory can be falsified, it must have a truth value, right? You cannot falsify a hammer, for example. Hammers have no truth value.
Those theories which have been falsified have a truth value of false, right? Perhaps the most obvious cases are theories that posit entities that do not exist (e.g. miasma, Santa Claus).
Do you believe all scientific theories are false? If not, what truth value do the others have? (Whether we can know this is another matter -- a matter of epistemology).
There are some people who hold that scientific theories do not have truth values inasmuch as they assert nothing -- same as a hammer. These people are the abovementioned instrumentalists.
Clearly you're not one of them. You believe that scientific theories can be false. And any kinds of things (e.g. statements, beliefs) which are candidates for falsity are also candidates for truth.
You speak in other places of the "fact" of evolution. Right? Is that not just to say that evolution is true? Or is evolution a fact that is 70% true? (whatever that means).
Have you been doing a disservice to science? Have you been perpetrating the heinous crime of logic?
Damn your Vulcan logic! I'm a doctor, Jim, not a mathematician.
axocanth
Registered Senior Member
P.S. Richard Feynman was a scientific genius no doubt. Unfortunately, he was also one of these people as hostile towards philosophy as he was ignorant of it. "It's a load of bollocks!"
Load of bollocks or not, it never stops people like himself from doing it, and -- needless to say -- doing it very badly. As soon as he strayed from his own area of expertise, then, and began philosophizing (as he does above), he said a lot of things that were not very smart at all.
See also Neil deGrasse Tyson and the bear necessities. What can we really say about people who dismiss something as a load of bollocks doing that load of bollocks?
You'd be a lot better off with Einstein!
Load of bollocks or not, it never stops people like himself from doing it, and -- needless to say -- doing it very badly. As soon as he strayed from his own area of expertise, then, and began philosophizing (as he does above), he said a lot of things that were not very smart at all.
See also Neil deGrasse Tyson and the bear necessities. What can we really say about people who dismiss something as a load of bollocks doing that load of bollocks?
You'd be a lot better off with Einstein!
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
I hope not!
I admire logic used for mathematics. I am not equipped to talk about philosophy.
You know my views on scientific theories, scientists will have different views.
It does not change the science in my experience, it just changes the way people discuss it, scientists and lay people alike.
I will read my text books and design experiments and teach my colleagues where they need me.
axocanth
Registered Senior Member
They do, eh? Your mates in the pub never use these words?
Do me a favour. Count how many times you hear these words used tomorrow and report back to us.
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
Exchemist is correct, Newton and Einstein used completely different Mathematics, framework, assumptions.
I listed these previously.
Gould does not offer anything that contradicts Darwin.
He said this about Facts, theories, Newton and Einstein. Someone Pleeeaaassseee pass my that text book!
"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered."
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
Caveat, " in the purist sense."
axocanth
Registered Senior Member
Didn't overthrow it though?
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
No, as I have demonstrated. What does Gould know? He was a Geology/ Biology specialist!
He does not (did not) read enough modern physics text books obviously.
axocanth
Registered Senior Member
Evidently Einstein, Wheeler, d'Espagnat, Greene, Bohm, and Thorne suffer from the same lacuna in their education.
Last edited:
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
I am going to the pub in ten minutes.
Some truth claims.
I will drink alcohol
Villa will beat united.
Ten Hag will be sacked not long after, before the end of the day.
Tomorrow you can falsify those claims.