Your commentary is very helpful. May it keep coming.

:smile: :up:

They call it common sense for a reason. It relies for its validity on normative conventions, which are a mixed blessing. They allow for social cohesion at the expensive of the intelligibility of novel insights, especially in less conventionally oriented fields like philosophy. Sometimes what is needed is uncommon sense. As Heidegger wrote “ …a philosophy is creatively grasped at the earliest 100 years after it arises.” — Joshs

:up: Your quote exhales an aroma resembling wisdom.

:up: Your quote exhales an aroma resembling wisdom — ucarr

My deodorant must be wearing off.

This post intentionally left blank.

But you did say "literal idiots on Twitter quoting psychometric papers". — Ludwig V

Yes, and I meant literal idiots on Twitter.

"miracle" I mean a highly improbable or unlikely development — ucarr

That is a spurious definition and by then we are already off-track.

Is Heisenberg's uncertainty principle about existence or observation? — ucarr

Neither.

Thanks. I hope you won't find a final comment on common sense boring. Common sense, it turns out, has a philosopohical origin and a certain level of philosophical importance. Who knew?

The original historical meaning is the capability of the animal soul (ψῡχή, psūkhḗ), proposed by Aristotle to explain how the different senses join and enable discrimination of particular objects by people and other animals. This common sense is distinct from the several sensory perceptions and from human rational thought, but it cooperates with both.

The second philosophical use of the term is Roman-influenced, and is used for the natural human sensitivity for other humans and the community.
...............
It was at the beginning of the 18th century that this old philosophical term first acquired its modern English meaning: "Those plain, self-evident truths or conventional wisdom that one needed no sophistication to grasp and no proof to accept precisely because they accorded so well with the basic (common sense) intellectual capacities and experiences of the whole social body." .... In the opening line of his Discourse on Method, Descartes ..... stated that everyone has a similar and sufficient amount of common sense (bon sens), but it is rarely used well. Therefore, a skeptical logical method .... needs to be followed.... In the ensuing 18th century Enlightenment, common sense came to be seen more positively as the basis for empiricist modern thinking — Wikipedia - Common Sense

I realize that Wikipedia is not the most authoritative source, but I think it is likely more authoritative than I am.

DELETED

Maybe this person is just trying to approach something extremely obscure. — I like sushi

Yes, i think so! Makes it quite hard to know where the competence ends for myself too lol

miracle
noun
mir·​a·​cle ˈmir-i-kəl
Synonyms of miracle - curiosity, sensation, spectacle
1
: an extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs
the healing miracles described in the Gospels
2
: an extremely outstanding or unusual event, thing, or accomplishment
The bridge is a miracle of engineering.
3
Christian Science : a divinely natural phenomenon experienced humanly as the fulfillment of spiritual law

Merriam-Webster

Is Heisenberg's uncertainty principle about existence or observation? — ucarr

Neither. — 01Lionino

No. The HUP still is not about the "limits of quantised physical interactions". It has a clear physical meaning. — 02Lionino

Why are 01Lionino and 02 Lionino not a contradiction?

Is Heisenberg's uncertainty principle about existence or observation? — ucarr

Neither. — 01Lionino

The fundamental thing really is the mathematical object (the amplitude distribution) not the particle itself. Position and Momentum are inexorably tied together because we're talking about evolutions of states over time…

Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle tells us that we can't have this kind of information. He derived it from the mathematics as a fundamental inequality…

Tyler Kresch

If you can reconcile your “Neither” with the two above quotes, please do so.

The sciences are concerned with “what,” whereas the humanities are concerned with “how.”

Write an elaboration of what you think this means. — ucarr

Well there was a guy called Comte and he camed up with this idea. That sciences deal with how and philosophy deals with why. Then Russell and a bunch of other people repeated it mindlessly. With no argument or justification, just to make an arbitrary demarcation to rule out mainly metaphysical realism. The thing is, they were ruling out scientific realism with this approach too. It got too ridiculous proportions like seriously claiming that scientific theories don't posit any real beings to exist. Sciences do look at why. It's their main question. The answers mainly consist of positing the dispositions of objects of specific natural kinds. Electrons vibrate at specific frequencies, gold melts at some temperature, humans optimally operate at some narrow range of temperatures. By assigning dispositions to specific objects we can analyse many systems in terms of their simpler components. We can isolate these simpler components in experiments to check if they really have these dispositions posited. This way we can get to an answer why a system behaves like this and not the other way. "How" doesn't differentiate anything specific about it. Humanities are also concerned with causal analysis. The grammatical structure of the sentence - we group words by kinds and assign functions and relations between them. We can infer declensions and conjugations just by using some abstract terms assigned to words. In literature we can interpret works by their leading ideas, themes and styles. We can speak of a work of art, again, in terms of synecdoches, charactonyms, tones and motifs. Once again we understand the why of a complex phenomenon, why is it artistically appealing, intellectually engaging or socially impactful. Philosophy is aware of the problem of demarcation for a long time now. And it's not without reason. Because science is just the process of understanding the first, simple principles in terms of which a complex phenomenon arises and it pretty much characterizes all intellectual endeavors.

science is just the process of understanding the first, simple principles in terms of which a complex phenomenon arises and it pretty much characterizes all intellectual endeavors. — Johnnie

So - all intellectual endeavours can be understood in terms of the 'simple principles' from which 'complex phenomena' arise? What about physics? It is concerned with ostensibly 'simple principles' in the form of the so-called fundamental particles and forces, but it is self-contradictory to attempt to explain everything, including abstract reasoning, purely in terms of lower-level physical processes like particles and forces. The act of doing physics itself—engaging in abstract reasoning, mathematical formulation, and conceptual understanding—cannot be fully reduced to or explained in terms of these lower-level physical entities. This kind of reasoning involves higher-level cognitive processes that are on a completely different level to the so-called 'simple first principles', and in fact, we rely on those higher-level abstract skills (which I myself am almost entirely bereft of) in order to populate the now-incredibly-complex 'particle zoo' of the Standard Model of Particle Physics.

I realize that Wikipedia is not the most authoritative source, but I think it is likely more authoritative than I am. — Ludwig V

Wikipedia's "no original research" policy pretty much guarantees that its pages stand or fall with the objective justification in its original sources.

For some subjects, that is solid enough.

For other subjects, the problem is that the original research itself generally lacks objective justification.

In that case, Wikipedia is still not worse than its original sources. However, it may give the false impression that the information is legitimate, while it often isn't.

Wikipedia generally does a great job linking to the original research. Reading the original research is often an excellent way of deepening your own investigation.

Thank you. :smile:

it is self-contradictory to attempt to explain everything, including abstract reasoning, purely in terms of lower-level physical processes like particles and forces. — Wayfarer

Of course physics isn't concerned with explaining abstract reasoning. Complex phenomena are by definition a result of simpler things combining. I didn't argue for physicalism by saying that, just like Aristotle didn't:

For we do not think that we know a thing until we are acquainted with its primary conditions or first principles, and have carried our analysis as far as its simplest elements. Plainly therefore in the science of Nature, as in other branches of study, our first task will be to try to determine what relates to its principles.

Of course physics isn't concerned with explaining abstract reasoning. — Johnnie

Wouldn't that be circular?
Most people who are not dualists accept that there is a physical <insert your preferred term> of abstract reasoning, music, laughter &c. To deny that seems inevitably lead to dualism. The difficult issue is how to think of that relationship. "Cause", for example, implies reduction, "Foundation" is little better, because it is suggests "emerging", but that is hand-waving until some agreement about the phenomenon has been developed. I prefer "substrate" because that seems to involve minimal commitment.

Complex phenomena are by definition a result of simpler things combining. — Johnnie

That's a truism. The interesting question is whether you want to add "... and nothing else". As it stands, it suggests some version of atomism. But there is the question of what usually referred to as Gestalts, which has much to recommend it.

Of course physics isn't concerned with explaining abstract reasoning. Complex phenomena are by definition a result of simpler things combining — Johnnie

But is ‘abstract reasoning’ among those ‘complex phenomena’ that are ‘a result’ of simpler things combining?

In that case, Wikipedia is still not worse than its original sources — Tarskian

:rofl:

That website constantly misquotes their supposed "sources", which definitely are not even read in its entirety.

It is impressive how you are wrong about basically everything you say, post after post. Is this some advanced trolling or a genuine condition?

Merriam-Webster — ucarr

1 – Merriam-Webster is garbage;
2 – that is a metaphorical meaning;
12 – Merriam-Webster would have noted that were it not a terrible dictionary.

Even if it is somehow a valid definition, it is worthless for the argument being put forth. I won't invest my energies into explaining it. You can think about it if you want.

Why are 01Lionino and 02 Lionino not a contradiction? — ucarr

Because HPU is not about either "existence" or "observation", these two mean nothing in physics.
Next you will say something about this or that. No, observation is not relevant in physics, it is interference that is relevant, and interference happens through measurement, which is how we observe things (observation in itself is irrelevant).

In any case, I am not interested in discussing physics with anyone before the moment of force of this high school problem is presented to me in Cartesian coordinates:



Should save me time.

But is ‘abstract reasoning’ among those ‘complex phenomena’ that are ‘a result’ of simpler things combining?

Why not? And why does it matter to the discussion about the criterion of demarcation between why and how? There is a point in case it is a complex phenomenon studied by epistemology, psychology and cognitive sciences. They dissect the acts of mind into various layers and modules, is that surprising? My argument was - there is no demarcation between humanities and sciences. Because they share the methodology by which we understand anything whatsoever. Insofar as humanities make theories and are aimed at understanding anything. And especially the demarcation between how and why is shallow and doesn't reflect the scientific practice at all.

Ideally, I would do all experiments myself. But life's too short. I'm sure you agree. — Ludwig V

There is an expectation that other people will try to repeat the experiment but that is actually not necessarily the case. A lot of publications are never properly scrutinized:

https://www.nature.com/articles/533452a

More than 70% of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist's experiments, and more than half have failed to reproduce their own experiments.

Data on how much of the scientific literature is reproducible are rare and generally bleak. The best-known analyses, from psychology1 and cancer biology2, found rates of around 40% and 10%, respectively. Our survey respondents were more optimistic: 73% said that they think that at least half of the papers in their field can be trusted, with physicists and chemists generally showing the most confidence.

Data on how much of the scientific literature is reproducible are rare and generally bleak.

Yes, I had heard about that.

73% said that they think that at least half of the papers in their field can be trusted, with physicists and chemists generally showing the most confidence.

I'm not surprised that people were more optimistic. There must be a lot of resistance to accepting that the system is that bad. The cost of research is going to sky-rocket if all experiments have to be done twice, by different laboratories and people. But the incentives to be careless or reckless are very high. Too much competition.

Wouldn't that be circular?
Most people who are not dualists accept that there is a physical <insert your preferred term> of abstract reasoning, music, laughter &c. To deny that seems inevitably lead to dualism — Ludwig V

Most people would use the word physical here, and then add their preferred term. Many non-dualist philosophers, however, would insert their preferred term in place of ‘physical’ in order not to perpetuate a dualism implied by physicalism.

1 – Merriam-Webster is garbage;
2 – that is a metaphorical meaning;
12 – Merriam-Webster would have noted that were it not a terrible dictionary.

Even if it is somehow a valid definition, it is worthless for the argument being put forth. I won't invest my energies into explaining it. You can think about it if you want. — Lionino

You say Merriam-Webster is garbage. Can you cite a public and authoritative etymology for "miracle" that logically precludes this metaphorical sense of the word? I think it examples hyperbole which implies extreme improbability.

You say this metaphorical sense of the word is worthless for the following argument:

Even if the universe turns out to have a theory, this theory will almost surely be incomplete and therefore be able to predict just a small fraction of its facts. So, there is indeed ample scope for mysteries and miracles. — Tarskian

1) Metaphorical parallelism, even if not literal, nonetheless is logical; 2) Since our knowledge of the universe is incomplete, even the high school student knows the existence of a deity hasn't been been proven logically impossible. Especially pertinent to this incompleteness is the possibility of a higher-order of reality beyond what humanity knows as the natural world. At this higher reality, we might discover hyper-logical causes for phenomena perceived by humans as miraculous.

The big difficulty is that one has to have competence in a field in order to assess how authoritative a source is — Ludwig V

In practice, that is not true. Competence in the field is not required, just common sense. A physics textbook by a professor from Utretch, used in physics courses internationally, is authoritative, a researcher's blogspot is not.

I don't need to know neuroscience to have the common sense to not take at face value a research paper (which isn't made for laymen) from 2011 with 2 citations and 1 no-name researcher. — Lionino

1) Can you show categorically how textbooks are authoritative but blogspots are not?

2) Can you show how your disdain for no-name researchers is something more than snobbery acting on behalf of laziness? Also, bear in mind, big-name researchers were originally no-name researchers.

3)

I am not interested in discussing physics with anyone before the moment of force of this high school problem is presented to me in Cartesian coordinates — Lionino

It's obvious that your "moment of force" exam is an entrance exam of sorts aimed at vetting the competence of candidates worthy of dialoging with you on topics from physics. Let's consider what you've written:

1) "Competence in the field is not required, just common sense."

2) "I am not interested in discussing physics with anyone before the moment of force of this high school problem is presented to me in Cartesian coordinates."

Why are these statements not an example of your: a) hypocrisy; b) self-contradiction?

Here's an elaboration of the central premise of my OP:

Discovery of "what" is rooted in the predication of the fact of existing things.

Discovery of "how" is rooted in the adverbial modification of the predication of the fact of existing things. This adverbial modification elaborates both the effect and the affect of the fact of existing things. To the main point, "how" drags [personal] consciousness into the frame of the lens of discovery.[/quote]

Please show how your "moment of force" exam is pertinent to my central premise.

If it's not pertinent to my central premise, then perhaps you should post your exam within your personal profile. Henceforth, when someone tries to dialog with you, you can refer them to your profile, explaining that you must first deem them worthy of engagement by means of examination.

...HPU is not about either "existence" or "observation", these two mean nothing in physics. — Lionino

...observation is not relevant in physics, it is interference that is relevant, and interference happens through measurement, which is how we observe things (observation in itself is irrelevant). — Lionino

What are the two types of interference?

In physics, interference is a phenomenon in which two coherent waves are combined by adding their intensities or displacements with due consideration for their phase difference. The resultant wave may have greater intensity or lower amplitude if the two waves are in phase or out of phase, respectively.

--- Wikipedia

Though both types of interference occur when two waves meet, they produce different results. Constructive interference occurs when two waves collide and combine, but destructive interference happens when two waves collide and cancel out.

-- Britannica.com

You seem to be referring to a third type of interference, i.e., measurement interference. I'm unsure about what that is. Bear in mind, however, that the HUP is not about observer interference. No, it's an existential limitation on the availability of information via the Fourier transformations linking position and momentum measurements.

P.S. Don’t bother trashing Wikipedia and Britannic.com without providing arguments showing their incorrectness.

Most people would use the word physical here, and then add their preferred term. Many non-dualist philosophers, however, would insert their preferred term in place of ‘physical’ in order not to perpetuate a dualism implied by physicalism. — Joshs

Oops! Not well written. Perhaps the problem of finding a suitably non-committal way describing the role of physics here was clear enough? Or perhaps I shouldn't try to describe that role until I have worked out what it is.

In any case, I am not interested in discussing physics with anyone before the moment of force of this high school problem is presented to me in Cartesian coordinates: — Lionino

That's a pity. I'm not interested in discussing philosophy with anyone who expects me to pass a test of any kind before they will engage. That will save me a lot of time.

Life, especially intellectual life, is messy and often annoying. But it's a lot better than an ivory tower.

Why not? And why does it matter to the discussion about the criterion of demarcation between why and how? There is a point in case it is a complex phenomenon studied by epistemology, psychology and cognitive sciences. They dissect the acts of mind into various layers and modules, is that surprising? My argument was - there is no demarcation between humanities and sciences. Because they share the methodology by which we understand anything whatsoever. — Johnnie

But they don’t. How interactions between physical objects and forces is observed and understood is completely different to what makes a valid syllogism. The nature of the methods used in science is not itself a scientific but a philosophical. Historians and philosophers are not scientists, and none the worse for not being so.

I'm not surprised that people were more optimistic. There must be a lot of resistance to accepting that the system is that bad. The cost of research is going to sky-rocket if all experiments have to be done twice, by different laboratories and people. But the incentives to be careless or reckless are very high. Too much competition. — Ludwig V

I think that the vast majority of academic papers are considered to be irrelevant. In that sense, it does not matter if the justification supplied is solid or not. Nobody cares anyway.

Computer science is one good example. I haven't run into even just one situation in which professional literature references an academic paper. These academic papers do exist. However, they are perceived as being utterly irrelevant.

Cryptocurrencies and general cryptography are another example. Professional publications tend to be heavy on abstract algebra but references to academic papers are actually nowhere to be seen.

For example, Daniel Bernstein is globally leading grandee in the field of cryptography pretty much at the level of Adi Shamir. Nowadays, Bernstein's NaCl publication is increasingly replacing existing, older algorithms: https://nacl.cr.yp.to

Bernstein also happens to be a university professor. If he had published his work in an academic paper, however, I am quite confident that it would never have taken the software engineering world by storm.

I think that the vast majority of academic papers are considered to be irrelevant. In that sense, it does not matter if the justification supplied is solid or not. Nobody cares anyway — Tarskian

Pretty much the case in mathematics. One result is that even competent referees skim over details too often, especially if the author is a respected academic. Lots of mistakes are published, mostly non critical.

I think that the vast majority of academic papers are considered to be irrelevant. In that sense, it does not matter if the justification supplied is solid or not. Nobody cares anyway. — Tarskian

An academic paper is a terrible way of publishing research. Nobody really knows, but it seems likely that more than half of academic papers published are never read by anyone except the author and a journal editor or two. I just feel pity and admiration for the editors (and referees).

I saw one estimate that 90% are never cited by anyone. Reading a paper to your own colleagues will almost certainly get more exposure than sending it to a journal.
Of course, there's a lot of argument. I couldn't find any attempts to measure how many are irrelevant.

(Numbers are indicative only, based on the first page of a Google search)

Pretty much the case in mathematics. One result is that even competent referees skim over details too often, especially if the author is a respected academic. Lots of mistakes are published, mostly non critical.

We searched Scopus for authors who had published more than 72 papers (the equivalent of one paper every 5 days) in any one calendar year between 2000 and 2016, a figure that many would consider implausibly prolific1. We found more than 9,000 individuals, and made every effort to count only ‘full papers’ — articles, conference papers, substantive comments and reviews — not editorials, letters to the editor and the like. — Ioannidis, Klavans and Boyack - Nature.com

Nobody wants academic posts to be a sinecure. But it would be nice if we could incentivize them to spend their time usefully. How about rewarding them better for being good teachers than for producing research that no-one wants?