I've spoken a lot of what others have to gain, but what of us? I think that if we aren't just talking nonsense, then saving a world headed for destruction is payment enough for me, even if nobody knows. — TogetherTurtle
I too sometimes have an issue with taking money for things. I think this is something we need to get around. If you want to change anything, anywhere, you have to be able throw your weight around a bit. I think a good way to start justifying it to ourselves is by only using profit for the greater good. I've convinced myself that I don't need too much to live, so any profit I make is likely to go into an investment fund for compounding until later use. — TogetherTurtle
I think it unlikely that the basis of physics would be flawed if it was done so long ago by such different people and still stands. — TogetherTurtle
And yet you compared the two to "apples and apple trees", so you seem to see some, er, relationship between them. What is this relationship? — Pattern-chaser
How is a statement about the methodology "metaphysical"? Everything can be defined as being metaphysical, but I fail to see how I've made a metaphysical statement. — thewonder
the methodology does sort of assume that there is an abstract truth that is to be deigned somehow. — thewonder
I read a 2013 book by Jim Baggott called 'Farewell to Reality: How Modern Physics Has Betrayed the Search for Scientific Truth'. '
— Wayfarer
Thanks for the reference. The first two or three chapters are available free on the web. Just the preface is worth the price of admission, so I bought the book. I look forward to reading it. — T Clark
I don't think that the abstract realm exists. — thewonder
There are a whole range of other realities whose reality we can now affirm: interest rates, mortgages, contracts, vows, national constitutions, penal codes and so on. Where do interest rates "exist"? Not in banks, or financial institutions. Are they real when we cannot touch them or see them? We all spend so much time worrying about them - are we worrying about nothing? In fact, I'm sure we all worry much more about interest rates than about the existence or non-existence of the Higgs boson! Similarly, a contract is not just the piece of paper, but the meaning the paper embodies; likewise a national constitution or a penal code.
Once we break the stranglehold on our thinking by our animal extroversion, we can affirm the reality of our whole world of human meanings and values, of institutions, nations, finance and law, of human relationships and so on, without the necessity of seeing them as "just" something else lower down the chain of being yet to be determined. — Neil Ormerod
metaphysics is difficult. If we look at wikipedia, and the Stanford dictionary of Philosophy, and so forth, we find many different descriptions of what metaphysics is, most of them unclear (IMO). About the only thing I am sure about is that metaphysics has nothing to do with physics. :smile:
Does metaphysics address "What is"? I don't know. I can only offer an example. Whether I am a brain in a vat, or one of the many other possibilities applies instead, is a question science cannot begin to address, because there is no evidence. None at all. So there is no grist for science's mill. Metaphysics allows us to consider such issues (and others too, of course). Not in the same way that science does, but that's the point. The two disciplines are complementary, with little or no overlap.
Then you refer to discovering "what actually exists", which confuses me. Do you mean to refer to Objective Reality (that which actually is, regardless of our beliefs, opinions, etc.)? If so, then I would suggest science cannot address that one either, because we have no knowing access to Objective Reality. Did you mean that, or were you intending to describe the apparent reality that our perception shows us pictures of, that science addresses as the space-time universe? — Pattern-chaser
The goddess [that Parmenides is taken to meet 'on a chariot'] resides in a well-known mythological space: where Night and Day have their meeting place. Its essential character is that here all opposites are undivided, or one. He must learn all things, she tells him – both truth, which is certain, and human opinions, which are uncertain – for though one cannot rely on human opinions, they represent an aspect of the whole truth.
How could what is perish? How could it have come to be? For if it came into being, it is not; nor is it if ever it is going to be. Thus coming into being is extinguished, and destruction unknown. (B 8.20–22)
Beyond that, the question in science is rather: How did you test that? How did you take care of scientific controls? Has anybody else tested it again? These anti-spam measures neatly hark back to Popperian falsificationism, which in my impression, still rules as king over the epistemic domain of science. — alcontali
Sometimes the example of Gandhi is given to show that a single individual can change a lot of things, while being peaceful, and without money, but the reason Gandhi changed things is that the revolt was already latent within the Indian people, and he was the spark that ignited it. — leo
They don't see a problem, because they believe whatever the problem science will come to the rescue, meanwhile they can just be mindless drones enjoying themselves in runaway consumerism. The world won't be saved if they don't wake up. — leo
I actually think money is at the root of a lot of the problems we face, and that we won't change things if we don't question money. Money destroys relationships between humans and between humans and nature. Nature has lived without money for eons, but now human society prevents us from living without it. The land doesn't belong to all life, it belongs to a few people. If we want to use land or settle on land, we need first of all to have money, otherwise the self-proclaimed land owners force us out with the help of other humans called the law enforcers. To have money we have to work for the people who have money, and usually that involves helping grow an industry that contributes to destroying nature. So essentially money and the people who enforce it force us to perpetuate the very system that is destroying nature. — leo
Replacing money with bartering wouldn't help. Bartering rests on the notion that "if you do this for me, I do this for you, otherwise I don't do this for you", rather than on a notion of "let's help ourselves and let's help others", so in bartering there is still the implicit idea that the value of a human being stems from the resources he has, which leads people to accumulate as much resources as possible, and then the few who own the most resources can enforce their ownership and force people to participate in their own system, and since it is the lust for power that got them there, their system too would likely involve seeing nature as a tool to master and to use rather than seeing it as their own habitat and as something to respect and cherish. — leo
Newton's laws stood for several centuries until they were found to be flawed. I believe the foundations of electromagnetism and relativity and quantum mechanics are flawed, and all the modern theories are built on them. They work to some extent but that's it, and now we're in an impasse because questioning these foundations is frowned upon in the scientific community, aspiring physicists become professional physicists by spending years studying and mastering the content and application of these theories, their professional career becomes built on these foundations, they get funding for their research by working on developing the paradigm based on these foundations, they don't get published in professional research journals if they drift too far away from the status quo, so they have every incentive to not question these foundations. The paradigm doesn't change not because scientists of every generation question the foundations and agree that they are the best ones, but because they don't question these foundations, they grow up in a system that teaches them to accept them before they can become scientists. — leo
I would have loved to make a living working on my own theories based on different foundations, but academia wouldn't give me the liberty to do that, and I haven't found people who would believe in me enough to be willing to fund me, so it's something I did in my spare time. But then I grew tired of it, I thought even if I dedicate myself to it 10 or 15 years and I succeed then what? We would have a theory that is simpler and explains more, but people still wouldn't understand why it took so long for such a theory to appear, the fundamental issues in academia and in the scientific community wouldn't be solved, that theory would become the new oppressive paradigm that people aren't allowed to question, and the fundamental issues in our society and in our relationship with nature wouldn't get solved either. — leo
Even if I became famous and began writing on these issues, the world still probably wouldn't listen, because while people are willing to agree with a theory that makes predictions that are observed, they don't want to question their deeply held beliefs unrelated to that theory, they don't want to be told that they are responsible for where the world is going, and they don't want to be told that science won't save them. That's how the later writings of famous scientists get dismissed as the rants of old men who should have stuck to writing about their theory, when they say things that people do not want to hear. — leo
Somebody in this thread said that part of the reason philosophy is looked down on by scientists is that the philosophers don't do or understand science. — T Clark
We should turn that around too, make people understand that so-called scientists who don't understand the intellectual underpinnings of what they do are just technicians. — T Clark
Well, I would hope I don't have to do it alone, or without money. At the very least, you and I agree that this could be a problem, so there are at least two. — TogetherTurtle
Perhaps "waking people up" isn't the right approach. People get upset (specifically at the one who awoke them) when they're woken up.
People chase after their desires. If we want people to do something, there has to be something in it for them, likely in the immediate future. — TogetherTurtle
Yes, but what of the positives of money? Currency, at least in the modern era, is used as a certificate of work done. Essentially, unless obtained illegally, what you're saying when you buy groceries is "somehow, human society has justified that my work equals this food". It's the somehow that is the problem.
A fair society without money would be a bureaucratic nightmare. It would take an immense amount of work to track all of the work a person does, give that work a value, and then also value the items they wish to obtain. It would be that, 7 billion times over. — TogetherTurtle
What if we could develop a system in which money was always made from benefiting the whole? What benefits the whole would be decided on by looking at scientific evidence as well as the goal as a whole being pleasure for all. — TogetherTurtle
Again though, I think it's interesting how if there was money in it, you would have been able to conduct your research. — TogetherTurtle
The reason I picked apple trees is because apples grow out of them. I guess you could say science grows up out of the philosophy of science. As I've said, another way to look at it is that science and the philosophy of science are both part of one thing. Like apples, apple trees, soil, rainfall, the farmer could all be seen as part of the system that grows apples. — T Clark
If any self-respecting scientist happened upon this forum, she would tell them where they can stuff their philosophy - and would be absolutely right. — SophistiCat
From my perspective, what you say is mistaken. Any area with a mental component has philosophy somewhere in its foundations, if you grub around enough to find it. How could it possibly be otherwise? — Pattern-chaser
If any self-respecting scientist happened upon this forum, she would tell them where they can stuff their philosophy - and would be absolutely right. — SophistiCat
I don't deny the value of philosophy, nor even its applicability to science. — SophistiCat
But I wasn't talking about science and the philosophy of science, I was talking about science and metaphysics. I thought we all were.... :chin: I don't see how science could 'take over' from metaphysics any more than I can see how cage-fighting could 'take over' from wallpaper. They aren't the same thing, and they don't address the same issues. They seem to me to be complementary. — Pattern-chaser
That's why I called it philosophy of science rather than metaphysics. — T Clark
Philosophy of science is a sub-field of philosophy concerned with the foundations, methods, and implications of science. The central questions of this study concern what qualifies as science, the reliability of scientific theories, and the ultimate purpose of science. This discipline overlaps with metaphysics, ontology, and epistemology, for example, when it explores the relationship between science and truth. — Wikipedia
In my experience of talking with scientists about philosophy, I have found that many times most scientists seem to look down on it like if it were just speculative non-conducive discussions about random thoughts that anyone can make up. — Shushi
You're reasoning within the paradigm of money there. Why do we need certificates of work done? — leo
While if you carry out a criminal act for some powerful individual, you bring a little positive value to that individual, you bring a lot of negative value to potentially many people, and yet you get a lot of money, and then society values highly what you have done. — leo
I really don't see how you could do that. Once people are forced to need money for anything by the few people who have the most of it, money doesn't benefit the whole, because usually those who have the most power have a lust for power, and that lust for power transcends their desire to benefit the whole (which they usually don't have, they simply care about benefitting themselves). — leo
In a world without money I could build my own place and get my own food, and conduct my research the rest of the time without needing anyone. And then if people believed in me they could help me get food or bring me food so that I could focus on the research. No need for money. — leo
People don't like giving away their precious goods for less than they're worth. If they can abuse the system to be paid more than they're worth, they will, but almost nobody on the planet is ok with the opposite, getting less than they're worth.
Money is the carrot on a stick that keeps people moving. If you want someone to do something, money is probably going to be involved. — TogetherTurtle
It's my belief that nobody does evil things on purpose. It's impossible to see everything and act accordingly, and so sometimes people make mistakes, and people don't like to admit their mistakes, even to themselves. When this "powerful individual" asks you to commit a crime, they're doing so because they genuinely think that keeping themselves in power is for the greater good. — TogetherTurtle
Would you have time for research when you're too busy farming, preserving, or hunting depending on where you build your shack? Civilization exists to solve that very problem. If you want to do this work, you'll absolutely have to rely on others. — TogetherTurtle
I still think these two subjects, while both are 'philosophy', are quite distinct. — Pattern-chaser
Newton's laws stood for several centuries until they were found to be flawed. — leo
Indeed, if dark matter was really there, the plenty of experiments on dark matter should have most likely detected it by now. — leo
Come on, nature has been working without money for eons, people have lived without money for eons, it's not money that makes people move no, but in this ugly society it is, because of the few in power who force people to need money to get what they need, and indeed who have implemented it in a way that it serves as a carrot on a stick. — leo
The current system is abused left and right in horrible ways and there is nothing you can do about it. The system isn't made to be efficient, it's made in such a way that the majority remains poor, so that they have to work hard every day, so that their overlords can enjoy the fruit of their labor, while most people earn just enough to get shelter and food and a tiny bit of fun to keep them motivated. Most people have to earn just enough to be slaves as efficient as possible, if they earn too much they work less and then money becomes less effective as a tool of control, while if they earn too little at some point it becomes unbearable for them and they revolt against their overlords. The system is like that by design, realize that. — leo
If money was efficient it wouldn't take 30 years to pay for a house, because it sure as hell wouldn't take 30 years to learn how to build a house and to build one. — leo
I find disgusting the very notion of forcing people to do something, I don't want to force people to wake up, I want to change what's preventing them from waking up. — leo
I used to be naive like that. What some people see as the greater good is serving the Devil, literally, they don't worship God they worship Satan. Tyrants don't want the greater good, they care about themselves. — leo
People had the time to paint in the Lascaux Cave 17,000 years ago, I guess they had some free time back then, they weren't constantly farming or hunting. — leo
Other animals don't spend all their waking hours hunting for food. And somehow we're supposed to believe that without money we would never have any free time? Yea, no. — leo
I would have free time on my own, and I would have more free time if some other people believed in me and brought me food. — leo
I was watching a documentary the other day about Amazonian people who get forced out of the forest so some big foreign companies can come destroy it and exploit its resources. In compensation these people were given small houses in a small city nearby, in essence they were forced into civilization. They were interviewed, and what did they say about it? That they much preferred the life in the forest, there they only had to hunt for a little while to get food, while in civilization they have to work all day long to get money to get food. And they said that in civilization there is constant stress, dangers everywhere, they have to watch out for cars and motorcycles on the road, people have guns, while life in the forest was much simpler and more peaceful, there they were connected to nature. — leo
I don't see modern civilization as a solution, I see it as the problem. — leo
They are not flawed in the sense you are describing. It has been acknowledged that they are not applicable in some situations, e.g. when the speed of a phenomenon is greater than about 10% of the speed of light, i.e. phenomena at human scale. Engineering uses Newton's laws almost exclusively because it works and because it's right. — T Clark
You and I have been back and forth on this issue previously. Dark matter has been detected. It was detected by observing the gravitational behavior of the visible universe. Do you think I have to hold it in my hand or lick it to see how it tastes before there is evidence. Just about everything we know of that is outside human scale we know indirectly, including dark matter. — T Clark
If you won't believe me but you will believe Wikipedia, maybe you will believe the Nobel laureate in physics Frank Wilczek, he says the same stuff as me, somehow when I say something it's not true but when Nobel laureates say it it's true, somehow appeals to authority is what serves as convincing arguments on this forum, so there you go: — leo
We've been back and forth but you still haven't got it. — leo
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.