"Classical" model of physics ... a reliable reflection of "Activity" within the larger "Reality" we all inhabit AND a faithful guide to understanding and problem solving "change" in the "real" world.
Interesting tag you have .
Does it imply God/s could be a Factor affecting physical Reality? — Chris1952Engineer
Modern science, and modern thinking generally, rejects teleology, which is the idea that ‘things happen for a reason’ or that beings have a reason for existence. Or rather, the kinds of reasons which science deals with are what in Aristotelian philosophy are called efficient and material causes. ‘Formal’ cause and ‘final’ cause were both thrown out along with Aristotelian physics, which was inextricably bound up with Ptolemaic cosmology and geo-centrism. ‘Ancient and medieval ethics, argues MacIntyre in After Virtue, relied wholly on the teleological idea that human life had a proper end or character, and that human beings could not reach this natural end without preparation, that being the foundation of virtue ethics. Renaissance science rejected Aristotle's teleological physics as an incorrect and unnecessary account, which led Renaissance philosophy to make a similar rejection in the realm of ethics.‘ — Wayfarer
However since retiring I have had time to consider other models such as "Relativity" and "Quantum Mechanics" and find myself increasingly drawn to the conclusion that Physics is a flawed mirror. One that we need to understand before we can move on and be at peace with both Science and ourselves. — Chris1952Engineer
Classical physics works well to solve problems in the world of physical reality of space and motion — magritte
how can that be extended into our daily lives? — magritte
↪jgill
You might be thinking of the well-known Heisenberg quote: 'We have to remember that what we observe is not nature herself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning.' — Wayfarer
Physics can never show "WHY" Reality behaves as it does until we understand its inherent flaws. — Chris1952Engineer
3) Physics can never show "WHY" Reality behaves as it does until we understand its inherent flaws. — Chris1952Engineer
Modern science, and modern thinking generally, rejects teleology, which is the idea that ‘things happen for a reason’ or that beings have a reason for existence. Or rather, the kinds of reasons which science deals with are what in Aristotelian philosophy are called efficient and material causes. ‘Formal’ cause and ‘final’ cause were both thrown out along with Aristotelian physics, which was inextricably bound up with Ptolemaic cosmology and geo-centrism. ‘Ancient and medieval ethics, argues MacIntyre in After Virtue, relied wholly on the teleological idea that human life had a proper end or character, and that human beings could not reach this natural end without preparation, that being the foundation of virtue ethics. Renaissance science rejected Aristotle's teleological physics as an incorrect and unnecessary account, which led Renaissance philosophy to make a similar rejection in the realm of ethics.‘ — Wayfarer
Faith excludes knowledge — god must be atheist
For my money, science doesn't answer a particular variety of why questions, ones that ask for an explanation for why scientific descriptive laws are the way they are. — TheMadFool
`physics has assumed as paradigmatic for science generally. — Wayfarer
What physics offers is unprecedented clarity, certainty and control with respect to the objects of its analysis. — Wayfarer
Hence the influence of physicalism in modern culture and the phenomenon of ‘physics envy’ which is the desire for other scientific disciplines to attain the same level of clarity and certainty as physics. — Wayfarer
In recognition of his experiment, journalist James K. Glassman coined the term "Zohnerism" to refer to "the use of a true fact to lead a scientifically and mathematically ignorant public to a false conclusion". — Wikipedia
There’s an important distinction to be made between methodological and metaphysical naturalism. The former is simply the judicious assumption to leave aside, or bracket out, factors which are not reasonably in scope for scientific method. — Wayfarer
But methodological naturalism morphs into metaphysical naturalism when those methodological assumptions are treated as ‘statements about reality’. That is why physicalism can be compared to a ‘Procrustean bed’ (Procrustes being a mythological Greek bandit who would stretch or squeeze hapless travellers into his iron bed.) — Wayfarer
Methodological naturalism, by contrast, has a kind of Socratic modesty - it doesn’t make assumptions beyond its warrant or make statements beyond its domain. But you don’t see a lot of that. Rather the spirit of science nowadays is Promethean rather than Socratic; having displaced God, we now want to replace him. (A journalist once asked Craig Venter, synthesiser of DNA, whether he was concerned by the accusation that scientists like himself were ‘playing God’. ‘We’re not playing’, was the response - with a wink, I suspect, but still...) — Wayfarer
Do you have any examples, instances, of the "travellers" that don't fit in physicalism's Procrustes? — TheMadFool
Non-materialists. There are many varieties. — Wayfarer
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.