it’s a somewhat humorous expression, with some truth to it. It’s not supposed to be a philosophical theory. But when I studied post-modernism, it came in handy.

Sure. Love to hear more. I did discuss the definition of “real” in an early post.

thanks. That’s a great wrap up of the issues I encountered with philosophy of science. It IS skeptical of science, more on political terms than philosophical it seems to me. And I agree with some of those critiques. But they represent the misogyny, racism and white privilege of the scientists, not the method itself.

And I think it misrepresents what the average scientist does. Which is simply going to work studying phenomena and ….doing science. I’m a lefty, for sure, but Phil of science displays a definite lefty bias and not all scientists are “complicit” in a hegemony.

“if we want to define what’s real as what’s understood by science, or by empirical observations, that’s a choice. I wouldn’t do so myself.”

And you can argue there is no reality at all. This is another question I have. Why the anti-real, pro real argument in the first place?

which materialists are cold-hearted and don’t believe qualia like love are important. Can you name one specific thinker and some of his/her writing?

absolutely true. And those realities can be varied. I find Phil of sci often hesitates to name these realities. Here’s some that are never mentioned. I just find it telling that you’ll rarely find:

- curing cancer and all serious illness,
- improving medical methods
- finding methods of pain relief
- Curing blindness, deafness, mental illness
- ways to counteract climate change.
- on and on

If this causes some eye-rolling, know that’s I’ve mentioned the inherent misogyny, racism and white privilege. And yes protecting the institutions. Although it implies that institutions are bad.

But again - science responds to the social realities, and unless you’re deeply cynical at least SOME of these realities involve the desire to limit suffering.

What gives scientific truth its authority? Does language hook-up with the world as it really is, and if so , where is this connector between our concepts and what reaches our senses, to be found? Are our sensations in direct contact with the facts of the world, independent of cultural understanding?

There are cultural biases in the discussion we are having right now. All human endeavors involve cultural connections. You are influenced by past works in Phil. of Sci - Kuhn, Popper, Feyerbend. By using any commercial product we are buying into the same institutions you're criticizing.

It's more nuanced than you're implying. It's similar to criticizing a failed philosophical/political theory because the people who practiced it used it for their own selfish gains.

My question to you is regarding the scientific method. Do you think there's a method of understanding the world that is more effective?

..."we are a social species and everyone including scientists have goals, hence I agree with you when you say that in actual fact "we create theories to match our goal-driven social realities."

Not to be rude, but can't you apply this to the study Philosophy? Advancing in academia, making more money, social status, working in an institution within it's rules (University).

In fact most scientists work in universities. How is this social milieu different/less biased than science? And isn't what's important the soundness of the IDEAS?

which materialists are cold-hearted and don’t believe qualia like love are important. Can you name one specific thinker and some of his/her writing? — GLEN willows

I was kidding with Agent Smith, and he knows what I was talking about . . . . and it wasn't you. No offense intended. :smile:

I got the irony - and that people on this forum like chummy in-jokes.

I do think humour usually has at least a whiff of truth, and I have heard materialists accused of that and more.

On point señor!

What about the fact that when Lawrence Krauss' book A Universe from Nothing came out philosophers wasted no time in distancing themselves from Krauss, saying the nothing of physics is not the nothing of philosophy i.e. Krauss failed to answer the philosophical question why is there something rather than nothing?

Philosophy of science (any errors can be faulted to my poor recall)

1. Realism: Science shows you reality as it is. Mass actually does warp space-time.

2. Anti-realism: Science doesn't do what realism says it does. Science is nothing more than a sense-making schema where hypotheses are generated to fit observational data and the best one, selected based on criteria other than truth e.g. elegance, beauty, simplicity (novacula occami), is given the stamp of approval. Mass warping space-time is the best explanation for the experimental findings, it may not.

That’s how I interpreted it and how it was taught. That’s the party line. It seems simplistic and negates any possibility of science ever being open-minded. Do you see my point?

Abd again many of the same criticisms of bias and institutional obedience could be said of philosophy in academia….no?

BTW I feel like we’re talking past each other, not really engaging. Can you (or anyone here) take a quick look at this? It expresses my thoughts far better than I am, and seems like a far most nuanced and balanced portrayal of science than what I’ve read here so far. With all due respect.

https://bostonreview.net/articles/windows-on-reality/

“Science is always undertaken from a definite point of view, a new book concedes. But it enlarges our knowledge of the world through the interplay of different perspectives.”

different perspectives. — GLEN willows

I skimmed through the linked article. Personally, I'd say there's no issue as regards trying out new perspectives but ... with the proviso that they yield testable claims. Science is no longer science without experiments in my humble opinion. If memory serves one of the main problems with string theory is that it isn't experiment-apt. That being the case string theory is just a pretty face, lacking ... absit iniuria ... any substance.

Too, giving due respect to Massimo, the Antivax movement is weak evidence that there's something wrong with science. These folks are against vaccination less because science is flawed in some way but more because there are allegedly compelling political reasons. Science merely serves as a sidekick, a henchman to the Antivax political agenda.

That said, I would love to see a novel approach to our world, one that's nonscientific and equally or even more effective than science - a radical proposal compared to Massimo's rather conservative stance to only experiment with scientifically valid perspectives.

the Antivax movement is weak evidence that there's something wrong with science. — Agent Smith

That's not what she's saying. She's sayng the antivax movement is one visible aspect of the anti-science sentiment sweeping populist circles. She talks about the amazing success rMRA vaccines have been, and in an unheard of time frame.

That being the case string theory is just a pretty face, lacking ... absit iniuria ... any substance. — Agent Smith

All theories are ...theories, until proven. Entanglement was a theory (which even Einstein denied) until it was finally tested.

Agent Smith "I would love to see a novel approach to our world, one that's nonscientific and equally or even more effective than science".

Apparently all philosophers would. This is what's vexing to me. Better how?

Better how? — GLEN willows

Great question. Well, if science could speak, it would say "I would looove to find truths!" Science's ultimate goal is to figure out, as some say, the true nature of reality. However, it can't - its mainstay, hypotheses/theories, are only instances of abduction and thus inherits the limitations of that method (it offers not truths, only good explanations).

The question then is ...

How many roads must a man walk down
Before you call him a man? — Bob Dylan (Blowin' in the Wind)

In a sense science (induction/abduction/explanations) aspires to be philosophy (deduction/proofs)!

it’s a somewhat humorous expression, with some truth to it. It’s not supposed to be a philosophical theory. But when I studied post-modernism, it came in handy. — GLEN willows

Oh, I didn't take it as a joke. I would if e.g. you said "if you don't understand something, it could be because you are stupid!" :grin:
Well, anyway, what I said is true and it has nothing to do with philosophy, but with study and language.
So, I believe my intervention serves some purpose anyway! :smile:

The non-materialist's impossible burden is to explain ... the difference betwixt the immaterial and nothing. Mayhaps that is what non-materialism is all about - a study of nothing! — Agent Smith

What's the difference between a materialist and a monist then?

1. Realism: Science shows you reality as it is. Mass actually does warp space-time.

2. Anti-realism: Science doesn't do what realism says it does — Agent Smith

There is another option:

“Both scientific realists and antirealists presume semantic realism--that is, that there is an already determinate fact of the matter about what our theories, conceptual schemes, or forms of life "say" about the world. Interpretation must come to an end somewhere, they insist, if not in a world of independently real objects, then in a language, conceptual scheme, social context, or culture.

Cultural studies of science , instead, reject the dualism of scheme and content, or context and content, altogether. There is no determinate scheme or context that can fix the content of utterances, and hence no way to get outside of language. How a theory or practice interprets the world is itself inescapably open to further interpretation, with no authority beyond what gets said by whom, when. This position has at least two important consequences in comparison to social constructivism. First, cultural studies can readily speak of statements as true, for "truth" is a semantic concept that never takes us beyond language: to say that "p is true" says no more (but also no less) than saying "p." Second, this position dissolves the boundaries between cultural studies of science and the scientific practices they study. Cultural studies offer interpretations of scientific practices, including the texts and utterances that such practices frequently articulate--but scientific practices are themselves already engaged in such interpretations, in citing, reiterating, criticizing, or extending past practice."(Joseph Rouse)

What's the difference between a materialist and a monist then? — bert1

Materialism is a subtype of monism I believe. If there's monism of any other kind, they need to be asked the same question.

Joseph Rouse' take is intriguing to say the least. There's a sense in which science is subsumed by culture; science was at different times the defining feature of distinct cultures - Greek, Islamic, and the torch has passed onto Europe and from there on, it spread rapidly and now is humanity's crown jewel.

As for language and its role in science, I'd havta admit the former's limitations eventually bleeds into the latter. If the well is poisoned, so is every drop of water drawn from that well. For better or worse, I'm in the dark as to the nature of the poison Rouse seems to refer to. Something to do with semantics or truth or maybe something else eniterly? Whatever it is, my response is that Rouse did have a notion of meaning, truth, and other linguistic elements as he penned his thoughts on the flaws in language, but isn't that a paradox? You're using language in particular mode (combination of semantics, truth, syntax) to make the claim that such usage is not good enough. Doesn't that make the criticism pointless. Rouse and his ilk are drinking from the very well they say is poisoned. :chin:

For better or worse, I'm in the dark as to the nature of the poison Rouse seems to refer to. Something to do with semantics or truth or maybe something else eniterly? Whatever it is, my response is that Rouse did have a notion of meaning, truth, and other linguistic elements as he penned his thoughts on the flaws in language, but isn't that a paradox? You're using language in particular mode (combination of semantics, truth, syntax) to make the claim that such usage is not good enough. Doesn't that make the criticism pointless. Rouse and his ilk are drinking from the very well they say is poisoned. :chin: — Agent Smith

He’s not saying that such usage isnt good enough. He is asking how language, syntax and truth statements hook up with the world. His answer is that structures of language shouldnt be seen as supervening on causal perceptual relations with natural objects, as though causation and the normative functions of language and rationality are distinguishable domains. Rather than maintaining a sharp distinction between contentful language and the world, Rouse wants us to recognize that:

"The understanding of conceptually articulated practices as subpatterns within the human lineage belongs to the Davidsonian-Sellarsian tradition that emphasizes the "objectivity" of conceptual understanding. Yet the "objects" to which our performances must be held accountable are not something outside discursive practice itself. Discursive practice cannot be understood as an intralinguistic structure or activity that then somehow "reaches out" to incorporate or accord to objects. The relevant "objects" are the ends at issue and at stake within the practice itself. "The practice itself," however, already incorporates the material circumstances in and through which it is enacted. Practices are forms of discursive and practical niche construction in which organism and environment are formed and reformed together through an ongoing, mutually intra-active reconfiguration.”

What about the fact that when Lawrence Krauss' book A Universe from Nothing came out philosophers wasted no time in distancing themselves from Krauss, saying the nothing of physics is not the nothing of philosophy i.e. Krauss failed to answer the philosophical question why is there something rather than nothing? — Agent Smith

Yes. Krauss had to admit that "something" (space, time, matter, energy, laws) must exist (presumably eternally) prior to the ex nihilo emergence of our physical world. I differ with him only in that I think it's necessary to add Math & Mind to that list of pre-existing factors, in order to explain the emergence of logical thinking creatures from an otherwise mindless process. Potential Mind (LOGOS) is the presumptive cause of Actual minds emanating from a substrate of Matter & Energy. :nerd:

PS__Most of those pre-existing factors (space, time, energy, laws, mind, math) are immaterial, hence not subject to Entropy. And Matter itself is an effect of space-time & energy + laws. Hence, subject to reduction into its essential elements. You can guess why Krauss didn't mention Mind & Math (Logic) under the heading of Nothing.

Nec caput nec pedes mon ami. I'm afraid I've wasted your time, but I remain grateful for introducing me to advanced concepts in linguistics. It appears that like how education is flagged off, with language first, with philosophizing too language is first.

These are topics that I know very little of monsieur! Best I zip up lest I contaminate the thread with my foolery.

How is this social milieu different/less biased than science? And isn't what's important the soundness of the IDEAS? — GLEN willows

I would say science is the least biased (but not devoid of bias) of the lot. Then again as someone with a science background, that could be influenced by my own bias...

Soundness of ideas is what is important, but so is the impact of the work. The second part can't be decided by science (by which I mean pure scientific method), but rather needs philosophy/ethics.

I can create a study on testing people's responses to torture. Take subjects into a room, torture them and diligently and scientifically record their biological responses. In order for it to be good science I need to make sure the study is reliable, accurate, good enough sample size, can be replicated, etc. And we will discover accurate new information from such a study.

So should we do such a study? No! and the "no" comes from ethics rather than the scientific method. There is nothing in the scientific method saying that it should be used for good or bad - both penicillin and the atomic bomb were cases of scientists performing very good science (as in using the scientific method correctly). It is ethics and philosophy that says the former did "good" and the latter "bad."

So the science we perform is influenced by the society in which it is done, for good and for bad.

“Science's ultimate goal is to figure out, as some say, the true nature of reality. However, it can't - its mainstay, hypotheses/theories, are only instances of abduction and thus inherits the limitations of that method (it offers not truths, only good explanations).”

Thanks for the very clear explanation of your position I really appreciate it.

Overall I don’t disagree and certainly agree that that science clearly has problem. I think that there needs to be improvements. But philosophy of science seems to be implying something more insidious. And I think there’s a straw man lurking.

I don’t hear a lot of scientists declaring that science is the “jewel of civilization” or their job is to “explain reality” - not in 2022 anyway. The implication that scientists = science are the same thing is also simplistic. Most scientists are not unaware of philosophy and the problems with defining reality in the first place.

As for theories, they’re…theories. I’m pretty sure scientists understand the definition of the word. They may be biased and some scientists do twist the results to fit their theory, but how many philosophical theories have been wrong, or at least illogical or based on a God proof? All theories can be wrong, in fact the ability to falsify a theory is a definition of a good theory - if you believe Popper.

Yes they're based on human desires - “build a better bomb” is sometimes one, but “alleviate suffering” is too. A scientist’s mother may have died of cancer, inspiring her to experiment with potential cures.

Here I feel like I'm being a cheerleader for science but I’m not. I just feel the urge to point out some of the negativity - and bias - of some of the attitudes here.

Back to theories - I believe the social-construction tinged idea that theories create the reality is disproven by the thousands of theories that have been wrong - and science has admitted were wrong. You know the list - phlogiston, alchemy etc. Again most scientists look at them as educated guesses.

No one has addressed my point that philosophers are also far from objective in the way they formulate their theories. Why? It just seems like a basic fact.

Philosophers are part of an institution, they depend on their living from it, desire tenure, and many of their theories have roots in other thinkers from hundreds of years ago. They’re influenced by societal norms, current politics, their own evolutionarily-intrinsic instincts, just like in any human-based endeavour.

Hardly subjective. Nor, I would say, any more successful at discovering ultimate truth or reality. The issue seems to be a war between anti-realists and realists. Yet the definition of real is - as has been pointed out - up for debate. To some people, if a scientific discovery cures millions of virus sufferers, isn’t that at least one definition of real?

Or let’s say “real adjacent” :smile:

I fixed the typos