The "Stage Theory of Theories" - Cause for Concern?

[parmalee]

Now, it can hardly be denied that meanings of terms change in science, Dalton's 19th century definition of atom. say, doesn't look much like a modern definition. If there is no continuity of reference, then we do not have a succession of theories about the same things, but rather scientists keep changing the subject. And if this is the case, it's hard to see how science can be making progress (except in an instrumental sense).

Predictably (probably), I've always found the very notion of "progress" somewhat problematic. If we follow Heidegger in this regard, the notion of "progress" is, in part, what renders scientists incapable of thought. (Though "efficiency" may be more apt here.). Funnily, the essay from which that idea stems is an imagined dialogue between a thinker and a scientist and it was long rumored to be based upon an actual conversation between Heidegger and... Heisenberg! Now personally, if I were to postulate this notion of a non-thinking scientist, I wouldn't base it upon Heisenberg.

 

[axocanth]

This may be a tangent too far, but I think that when you read a lot of American* logician/pragmatist/ordinary language types, you will eventually find yourself thinking about philosophy of education, as well. (I might have been heading this direction with my clumsy rephrasing of the hermeneutic circle above.) Dawkins, Harris, et al seem to discount the power of story-telling--and they very much share this with their Positivist forebears. There may also be an element of scepticism, which borders on paranoia, there, as well.

Totally! The religious elements are unmistakable in hysterical scientism. The end is nigh! The forces of evil are among us (e.g. Creationists). These people are not only stupid and ignorant, but wicked (Dawkins). Armageddon will descend if you do not repent fast and get baptised in the River Scientism.

Just scan through these forums!

 

[parmalee]

This is liable to raise the temperature of the room, but I completely disagree. The modern eugenics program was largely instigated by Darwin's very own cousin (Francis Galton). David Stove in his wonderful "Darwinian Fairytales" describes Darwinian doctrine as an "incitement to commit crime". I'm in full agreement.

Yeah, I have to confess a personal bias here: I consider Darwin an important precursor to contemporary animal rights/animal liberation philosophies (technically, Critical Animal Studies)--and he was especially concerned with dogs. Consequently, I tend to cut him some slack sometimes when perhaps I shouldn't. (Then there's that whole Deep Ecology and Naziism link which...yikes.)

 

[axocanth]

Yeah, I have to confess a personal bias here: I consider Darwin an important precursor to contemporary animal rights/animal liberation philosophies (technically, Critical Animal Studies)--and he was especially concerned with dogs. Consequently, I tend to cut him some slack sometimes when perhaps I shouldn't. (Then there's that whole Deep Ecology and Naziism link which...yikes.)

Even the gentlest of men, Charles Darwin, has one or two very disturbing passages (in "The Descent of Man", I believe). Perhaps you're already familiar with them. I'll try to track them down if you're not.

 

[axocanth]

Now personally, if I were to postulate this notion of a non-thinking scientist, I wouldn't base it upon Heisenberg.

Me neither. Heisenberg was well read in philosophy, as were all the great scientists of the period and before. The emergence of the scientist -- especially the physicist -- who is not only hostile to, but woefully ignorant of, philosophy seems to have begun around the 1950s, exemplified by Richard Feynman, thoroughly imbued with Copenhagen doctrine (often without knowing it), and encapsulated in the "Shut up and calculate" maxim. Read that as "We're not paid to think".

 

[axocanth]

Compare:

Now, it can hardly be denied that meanings of terms change in science, Dalton's 19th century definition of atom. say, doesn't look much like a modern definition. If there is no continuity of reference, then we do not have a succession of theories about the same things, but rather scientists keep changing the subject. And if this is the case, it's hard to see how science can be making progress (except in an instrumental sense).

and . . .

[Knowledge and understanding] Of unobservable reality? I would say: none. We don't have any access to unobservable reality, whatever it might be.

I wonder if James, and others who echo similar sentiments, fully appreciate the implications of remarks such as that above, e.g.

Gravity? We have no more understanding of gravity than we did 2000 years ago. Not one jot. Indeed, if you take instrumentalism seriously, theories purportedly making assertions about gravity are actually doing no such thing. Theories are just tools, remember?

 

[axocanth]

Gravity? We have no more understanding of gravity than we did 2000 years ago. Not one jot. Indeed, if you take instrumentalism seriously, theories purportedly making assertions about gravity are actually doing no such thing. Theories are just tools, remember?

P.S. Now substitute photons for gravity.

 

[billvon]

Um, then how come no one ever saw one until . . . you tell me! A few decades ago? How come I've never seen one? Bad eyesight?

The ONLY THING YOU CAN SEE is light, made up of photons. That's the only way any information gets to your eye.

And finally, can we assume that on your version of The Scientific Method all results are tentative . . . except theories of photons?

Yes, your theories of photons are tentative. In reality, they do exist. That's not a "theory" - that's a statement of fact.

 

[axocanth]

I've always thought that Dawkins and Harris (Sam, not Kamala), and especially Krauss (though I always found Dennett fairly reasonable), perfectly illustrate Heidegger's curious claim that "Scientists do not think". He wasn't being cheeky there, really he was just saying that science does not concern itself with thinking, and he was speaking more to instrumental science (or techne). They're outright dismissive of philosophy generally, outside of perhaps Kuhn and Popper, and, weirdly, seem oblivious to philosophy of language. If they do consider philosophy of language, they do so only within very narrow confines. (They do sometimes explore philosophy of mind, to a degree, but it's always in a very instrumental or technical manner.)

And they invariably misunderstand Popper and his version of The Scientific Method. They pick out the heroic bit about scientific theories laying their necks on the chopping block, as it were, virtually courting refutation (complete nonsense, of course) while neglecting or misunderstanding what Popper says about evidence/confirmation.

If you're a strict Popperian, induction plays no role in science, none at all. That means you can forget all about theories being highly confirmed, moderately confirmed, or even a teeny-weeny-itsy-bitsy-polka-dot-bikini confirmed. Scientific theories are not supported by evidence at all. Put another way, there is never any good reason to believe that a scientific theory is true.

Mountains of evidence for evolution? Forget it! There is not even a molehill.

Any strict Popperians left out there?

Now, the danger is that if you pick and choose from one philosophy and another -- taking the bits you like from Popper and elsewhere -- you end up with an incoherent whole.

The voluminous Wiki page on The Scientific Method presents a case in point. Unsuspecting readers may labor under the misapprehension that what they are reading is a highly detailed account of a singular, unitary, coherent Method.

Think again! What you're reading is bits and pieces -- taken from here, there, and everywhere, often mutually incompatible -- constituting something of a Frankenstein method.

 

[billvon]

Gravity? We have no more understanding of gravity than we did 2000 years ago. Not one jot. Indeed, if you take instrumentalism seriously, theories purportedly making assertions about gravity are actually doing no such thing. Theories are just tools, remember?

This is one of the classic logical fallacies called "argument from ignorance" - specifically "I have not heard anything new about gravity, therefore there is no new understanding of gravity."

 

[axocanth]

This is one of the classic logical fallacies called "argument from ignorance" - specifically "I have not heard anything new about gravity, therefore there is no new understanding of gravity."

Do you understand what the position known as instrumentalism is? Give us a brief sketch, if you'll be so kind.

 

[axocanth]

The ONLY THING YOU CAN SEE is light, made up of photons. That's the only way any information gets to your eye.

Yes, your theories of photons are tentative. In reality, they do exist. That's not a "theory" - that's a statement of fact.

cf.

"The ONLY THING YOU CAN SEE is light, made up of corpuscles. That's the only way any information gets to your eye."

- Isaac Newton

 

[billvon]

"The ONLY THING YOU CAN SEE is light, made up of corpuscles. That's the only way any information gets to your eye."

Wrong word, right idea. Science has a long history of getting closer and closer to the underlying truth of how the universe works.

 

[axocanth]

Wrong word, right idea. Science has a long history of getting closer and closer to the underlying truth of how the universe works.

Ok, so we can close the case on photons? Carve it in stone next to the Ten Commandments?

 

[axocanth]

Wrong word, right idea. Science has a long history of getting closer and closer to the underlying truth of how the universe works.

Well, James doesn't think so. He tells us that our understanding and knowledge of "underlying truth" amounts to none. (see post 386 above) -- "We don't have any access to unobservable reality, whatever it might be."

What's his problem?

 

[billvon]

Ok, so we can close the case on photons? Carve it in stone next to the Ten Commandments?

Your trolling is becoming tiresome. If you don't understand electromagnetism, just say so.

What's his problem?

Again with the trolling.

 

[axocanth]

Your trolling is becoming tiresome. If you don't understand electromagnetism, just say so.

Again with the trolling.

Trolling? I am dealing with a complete incompetent, trying to be polite, and showing the patience of Job. Go read a book on the philosophy of science, dude. Your ignorance is quite appalling. And whether you know it or not, what you are attempting to do right now just is the philosophy of science.

 

[billvon]

Your ignorance is quite appalling.

Amusing, coming from a guy who doesn't understand the first thing about physics - but is smugly lecturing others on it.

 

[axocanth]

Amusing, coming from a guy who doesn't understand the first thing about physics - but is smugly lecturing others on it.

This is the problem in a nutshell. I am no more lecturing on physics than a person who writes a book on the history of science is. Physics will get mentioned, of course, but what's happening is that a person qualified to speak on historical matters brings his expertise to bear thereon.

The topics we have covered include epistemological issues (knowledge, belief, evidence, etc.), methodological issues (modes of reasoning used by scientists, etc.), questions about perception, and so on and so forth, all standard fare in the philosophy of science.

From the word go it became clear that you have no understanding of, or background in these things, not in itself a problem. However, I then proceeded to watch as you made one jaw-droppingly stupid remark after another (e.g. we see photons) and then insult me as I tried to lead you to see the naivete of your comments.

I will not be responding (to you) further.

 

[parmalee]

Me neither. Heisenberg was well read in philosophy, as were all the great scientists of the period and before. The emergence of the scientist -- especially the physicist -- who is not only hostile to, but woefully ignorant of, philosophy seems to have begun around the 1950s, exemplified by Richard Feynman, thoroughly imbued with Copenhagen doctrine (often without knowing it), and encapsulated in the "Shut up and calculate" maxim. Read that as "We're not paid to think".

There was that whole post-War "Better living through science" thing, best exemplified by The Betty Crocker Cookbook, wherein "if it doesn't come from a can or it's not synthesized in a lab, then it ain't food!" But there was also Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Operation Paperclip, the influence of the Final Solution (only more efficient!) on factory farming, and the emergence of sham "sciences" no less ridiculous or objectionable than phrenology (Aldous Huxley, whom I respect otherwise, was really taken with William Sheldon's Varieties of Physique, and it's companion volume, Varieties of Temperament. In fairness though, it's kind of hard not to be when it's characterization of the extreme ectomorph is so flattering.). Whether or not it's "fair" to "blame" science here is beside the point: Science had a bit of a pr problem and a branding problem. Going full elitist/supremacist is absolutely not the way to go, imho, but apparently some felt otherwise.