HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU (Stephen Grossman)
Subject: Re: Hidden Variables
Reply-To: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU
Organization: UMASS DARTMOUTH, NO. DARTMOUTH, MA.
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 02:19:38 GMT



>Yes, but you still haven't answered my question: name one
>significant contribution that a philosopher _of_ science
>has made _to_ science. My feeble mind can't think of>

Aristotle discovered logic and science. Philosophy causes science. Good philoso-
phy cause good science. Bad philosophy causes bad science. Very bad philosophy
cause science to end. Consider Kantian subjectivism as cause of pseudo human or
behavioral or social sciences, with all their bizarre, unproven views. Physical
science is applied Aristotle's classical realism (including rational system). 
This is very abstract but most claims that science stands alone are less ab-
stract and so cannot judge basics of philosophy, science, and their relation.

        See:
    "Biological Basis of Teleological Concepts"-Harry Binswanger, Ayn Rand In-
stitute, Los Angeles, 1990. (2nd Ren. Books)
    "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology"-Ayn Rand, NAL, 1990.
    "Plato, Kant, and Aristotle in Math-Glen Marcus, audio, 2nd Renaissance Book
Service, Oceanside, CA.
    "Foundations of Math and Science-H. Binswanger, audio, 2nd Ren. Books
    "Understanding Freud's Ideas"-Jonathan Rosman, audio, 2nd Ren. Books.
    "What Explains Intelligence"-Edwin Locke, audio, 2nd ren. Books.
    "Ominous Parallels"-Leonard Peikoff, Stein & Day, 1982.
    "Role of Philosophy & Psychology in History-Peikoff, audio, 2nd Ren. Books.
    "Aristotle'-Rand, audio, 2nd Ren. Books.
    "Apollo and Dionysus"-Rand, audio, 2nd Ren. Books.

    Pragmatism and empiricism have almost destroyed science.
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Subject: Re: Science vs Philosophy of
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 16:18:56 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.133107.8402@math.ucla.edu> barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu 
(Barry Merriman) writes:

   >I might add that this is another thing that separates philosophical
   >study from scientific study. We don't worry about reading the
   >original works, or dwelling on the lives and miscellaneous writings
   >of the originators of physical theory. For some reason that I don't
   >understand, philosphers still devote much time to original 
   >works from Descartes, Spinoza, Hume, Kant, Kierkegaard, etc, etc, 
   >rather than merely focusing on the concepts themselves, divorced
   >from their proponents (and their proponents generally inferior
   >original presentations).

   How do you divorce the concepts of Spinoza's philosophy from his
writings? That's not an easy task. Of course somebody who believes that
there is no worthwhile thinking outside science will find nothing of
value in Spinoza, but bemoan the absence of any testable Spinozistic
theory separable from his writings. But this is a silly attitude.

  As for original works in science, if you don't understand why
philosophers are interested in them, this indicates that you are not
interested in the question what science is, how scientific theories
are arrived at, why and how they are rejected or accepted, what is
necessary for science to make progress, what is unctious cant and what
is sound observation in the manifold statements thrown at us
concerning what "science" is and does. Which of course is perfectly
ok, but your remarks about the philosophy of science are really no
more relevant to a consideration of that topic than the sermon of a
fundamentalist minister is to the current state of evolutionary
theory.

Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
From: snodgras@crash.cts.com (John Snodgrass)
Subject: Re: invention of time
Date: 28 Aug 92 23:20:12 GMT

In <1992Aug26.074741.17446@math.ucla.edu> barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) writes:

>In article <snodgras.714777577@crash> snodgras@crash.cts.com (John Snodgrass)  
>writes:
>>       If you look into the 'overwhelming' support for relativity, you'll
>> find that once you subtract out the self-reference, the assumptions, the
>> handwaving, and the enthusiastic proponents, you're left with -- nix. But
>> if you really want to believe, with all your heart, just tap your ruby
>> slippers. "There's no theory like relativity."

>Nix? Not one shred, eh? Boy, all us physicists have sure been duped.
>Thank god an armchair philosopher has come along to straighten us out.

You pretend that I didn't make any arguments to support my point,
when 1) I pointed out that the bending of light in a gravitational
field does not support relativity against a material theory of gravity,
and 2) that arguments such as muon decay do not support (cannot support)
time dilation -- which again is suggesting non-material cause of physical
phenomena.

      If you have arguments against these two _technical_ points, why don't
you make them? Show us your vaunted grasp of Einstein's ideas.
I am prepared to show _exactly_ how any supposed proof of either special
or general relativity is based on either an unfounded assumption or a
questionable interpretation of results.


      I'm not so naive as to think anyone will be persuaded by my
arguments so as to reject relativity along with me, but I believe I
can rely on rational minds to see that relativity was a _choice_ made
on philosophical, rather than empirical, grounds. That it was _justified_
by gathering evidence, rather than (like say the theory of evolution)
forced upon by evidence.

>--
>Barry Merriman
>UCLA Dept. of Math
>UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
>barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)

      John E. Snodgrass
      -----------------
      snodgras@crash.cts.com
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
From: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill)
Subject: Re: Science vs Philosophy of
Originator: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 17:58:34 GMT
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.


In article <1992Aug27.142730.28989@porthos.cc.bellcore.com>, jgn@vixen.uucp (22122-niederberger) writes:

|> If education is a product offered to consumers, then we should judge
|> it by how happy the customers are.  Universities that teach
|> "creationism" and such nonsense are only to be judged by the
|> marketplace.
|> 
|> I for one would be happy to keep a few philosophers around if only to
|> counterbalance this consumerist rubbish.

Which is the rubbish part?  That people should get to choose what
they pay for?  Or that creationism is crap?  And how do you keep
a few philosophers around if you don't pay them?  And which few?
-- 
Gary H. Merrill  [Principal Systems Developer, C Compiler Development]
SAS Institute Inc. / SAS Campus Dr. / Cary, NC  27513 / (919) 677-8000
sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com ... !mcnc!sas!sasghm
From: arodgers@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Angus H Rodgers)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: Science vs Philosophy of
Date: 28 Aug 92 20:42:31 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept, QMW, University of London

In <exukjb.104.714951622@exu.ericsson.se> exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell) writes:

>>answer it, I'll be grateful; and if anyone can answer it *objectively*,
>>I'll fall off my chair in surprise.

>I would like to know what you count as subjective philosophizing to which 
>the recommended *objective* approach is to be constrasted? I have always 
>thought most thinking contains both depending on the subject matter. Please 
>clarify.
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Kenny Bell

Ah, this bit I *can* clarify: I was being ironic. (I forgot the :-) )
Or trying to be; I must have scored an own goal.

I'm sorry the original message was such a mess. (Excuse: it was my
first posting to Usenet. Everybody say, "Aw!")
--
Angus H. Rodgers  (PhD student), | arodgers@dcs.qmw.ac.uk  
Dept. of Computer Science, Queen | [ +44 | 0 ] 71 975 5241   
Mary & Westfield College,  Mile  | This space has not been left blank,
End Rd., London E1 4NS, England  | intentionally or otherwise.
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Subject: Re: Science vs Philosophy of
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista
	<1992Aug26.002202.14701@math.ucla.edu>
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 08:14:59 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.002202.14701@math.ucla.edu> barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu 
(Barry Merriman) writes:

  [Routine philosophy bashing.]

  What's the point of this? I mean, your remarks could just as well have
been made by somebody who knew nothing at all about philosophy. Very
boring stuff. For an interesting view of the uselessness of current philosophy
of science we must turn to the philosophy of science itself, viz. to
Feyerabend's writings.

  A distinction should be made between philosophy and a particular style
or tradition of academic philosophy. People like Einstein and Heisenberg
didn't doubt the importance of philosophy, but of course they may well
have been uninterested in the efforts of most philosophers of science.
It seems to me that you're letting your irritation with academic
philosophers run away with you.

Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Subject: Re: Science vs Philosophy of
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 92 13:31:07 GMT

In article <TORKEL.92Aug28124840@isis.sics.se> torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)  
writes:
> In article <1992Aug28.080242.7042@math.ucla.edu> barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu 
> (Barry Merriman) writes:
> 
>    >I assume relativity was an outgrowth of his
>    >understanding of electrodynamics plus a few key physical insights.
>    >(Relativity is essentially contained in Electrodynamics if you 
>    >allow yourself to interpret the theory correctly.)
> 
>    I was mainly referring to GR, which he worked on for a decade.
> I get the impression that you're basing your comments entirely
> on preconceived ideas, in which case I suggest the book by Pais,
> "Subtle is the Lord", as a source of factual information.

I admit to not having studied the life of Einstein in detail. What I 
know about it was tangential information picked up during the 
numerous courses I've taken on SR and GR, and reading Einstein's
little book on understanding relativity, plus a documentary on PBS.

I might add that this is another thing that separates philosophical
study from scientific study. We don't worry about reading the
original works, or dwelling on the lives and miscellaneous writings
of the originators of physical theory. For some reason that I don't
understand, philosphers still devote much time to original 
works from Descartes, Spinoza, Hume, Kant, Kierkegaard, etc, etc, 
rather than merely focusing on the concepts themselves, divorced
from their proponents (and their proponents generally inferior
original presentations).


--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)
From: amnell@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Marko Amnell)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: Science vs Philosophy of
Date: 28 Aug 92 15:00:02 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki

In article <Btp2yx.E5K@unx.sas.com> sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com 
(Gary Merrill) writes:

>In article <1992Aug27.191548.9076@klaava.Helsinki.FI>, amnell@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Marko Amnell) writes:
>|> In article <BtnLty.JC@unx.sas.com> sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill) writes:
>|> >
>|> >In article <1992Aug27.143116.16970@dcs.qmw.ac.uk>, arodgers@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Angus H Rodgers) writes:
>|> >|> In <1992Aug26.095740.17255@klaava.Helsinki.FI>
>|> >|> amnell@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Marko Amnell) writes:
>|> >|> 
>|> >|> >it's not at
>|> >|> >all clear that philosophical problems are amenable to scientific
>|> >|> >solutions.  Having said that, one of the reasons I'm using set theory in
>|> >|> >metaphysics is to try to bring some objectivity into the field.
>|> >
>|> >Objectivity, no.  Precision, yes.
>|> 
>|> I meant here objective as opposed to _subjective_ (and should have said
>|> so).  If philosophers agree to use the same formal language then at
>|> least they agree on something...
>
>I *know* that's what you meant!  But we *don't* all agree on the
>same formal language ('theory' would be better than 'language'
>here, by the way).  E.g., which set theory turns *you* on?  ZF,
>VGB, NF, ML?  Why not transfinite type theory?  Why not category
>theory?  Mereology, anyone?  Is your choice based perhaps on
>comparing the ontologies of these theories?  The sets of theorems?
>The ease of use? Again, you get precision, and not objectivity.
>The history of set theory is the history of class struggle.

But I didn't mean _theory_.  The point I was making was just that
Analytical philosophers all employ formal logic, and first order
predicate logic is used in many contexts by the vast majority.  Set
theory can be expressed in this logic as well.  So I still say it's
a question of objectivity too.  The philosophers accept a common idiom
and agree to respect its grammar, conventions, etc.  This allows them
to work together better and not fight over interpretation as much
as other schools.
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
From: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU (Stephen Grossman)
Subject: Re: Hidden Variables
Reply-To: pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU
Organization: UMASS DARTMOUTH, NO. DARTMOUTH, MA.
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 17:45:27 GMT

In article <TORKEL.92Aug30084955@bast.sics.se>, torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen) writes:
>  Since your reply did not emphasize the existence of existence, it is
>not altogether acceptable. The question of the existence of existence
>should not, at any time, be left open.
>
>  However, your article does draw attention to a major source of physical
>insight arrived at by pure philosophical thought. Just a few months ago,
>as I recall, there was an article in this group in which it was demonstrated,
>using the principle of the existence of existence, that the universe is
>finite.

    Is this humor?
    Assuming it is not, everything exists equally so existence and philosophy of
science exist equally. One can ignore existence for other limits. Perhaps, however, you
are considering science as limited by various philosophies of science and that is
important.
    Be careful of "pure philosophical thought." Philosophy and science are both
based in the concrete. Philosophy is basic and science is non-basic. Philosophy
is a study of already existing situations. Science creates situations (experiments)
and relates them to philosophical knowledge of already existing situations.
    Existence is a principle, but there is more, there is always more. Existence
is also a material existent and a head of lettuce. Existence is:all of the things
it is, acc/to Leonard Peikoff.
    Rand's recognition that "existence is identity" is, by a corollary, the re-
cognition that existence is finite. I don't know if other philosophers thought
this.
    Although epistemology is important and Rand's theory of concept-formation is
morally important, metaphysics is more important. I have abstracted a few Object-
ivist insights, connected them to the Pre-Socratics, and co-written an essay,
"Existence 2" which is stored in my main directory. By computer wizardry this can
be sent in the blink of an angry cat's eye.
From: amnell@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Marko Amnell)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: Science vs Philosophy of
Date: 27 Aug 92 17:32:43 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki

In article <1992Aug27.143116.16970@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> arodgers@dcs.qmw.ac.uk
(Angus H Rodgers) writes:

>In <1992Aug26.095740.17255@klaava.Helsinki.FI>
>amnell@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Marko Amnell) writes:
>
>>it's not at
>>all clear that philosophical problems are amenable to scientific
>>solutions.  Having said that, one of the reasons I'm using set theory in
>>metaphysics is to try to bring some objectivity into the field.
>
>Wouldn't it be more useful to bring some metaphysics into set theory?
>
>As an example of a metaphysical question: what do people mean when they
>talk about "universes of sets", when by "universes" they mean models of
>ZFC, and by "models" they mean certain sets? It would be all right if,
>as well as describing these "universes" with such formality, these
>theorists gave equally rigorous (if not equally formal!) attention to
>the naive and obvious question of which reasonings are valid, and which
>not, when applied to the (one) Universe within which these so-called
>"universes" are so casually (IMHO) presumed to exist - and which is
>presumably also the same familiar Universe in which you and I and
>Dan Quayle (perhaps) exist.

So, maybe we should cross-post this to alt.fan.dan-quayle?  :-)

To me, your "naive and obvious" question "which reasonings are valid,
and which not, when applied to the (one) Universe..." is not naive or
obvious at all.  In fact, what you've done is to encapsulate most of
epistemology!  So if I, or anyone else, could answer it for you
_objectively_, as you say, we could dispense with that part of
philosophy altogether!

But maybe what you're asking---correct me if I'm wrong---is something like
"Why should we expect that axiomatic set theory can teach us anything
about the real Universe?"  If so, what I would say is that there are
logical puzzles, like the Liar Paradox, or the question 'Is there a set
of all truths?' which concern basic concepts like truth and hence when
analyzed, might teach us something about how such concepts link up with
the world.  To me such uses of logic or set theory to study philosophical 
problems are no more far-fetched than the use of mathematics in
empirical sciences like biology or physics.  I don't know how close I came to
addressing your actual question.

Marko Amnell
From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: Proof of God's Existence
Date: 4 Sep 92 18:49:53 GMT
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department

In article <TORKEL.92Sep4163946@bast.sics.se> torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)  
writes:
> In article <Bu22I4.AyF@unx.sas.com> sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill) 
> writes:
> 
> Of course, in most cases, scientists
> have no particular competence to pronounce on the contents of philosophical
> papers

Is a paper that claims to establish a 'first cause' in the development
of the universe a philosophy paper? That sounds like a statement 
about the physical universe to me. What makes it philosophical
a several completely unfounded assumptions about the causal structure
of space time.

To be fair to the author, we can hope the paper is a tad facetious.
This brings me to yet another thing that annoys me about philosophers:
the prefer a deft turn of phrase to a simple presentation, and seem
to prefer the clever argument over really getting to the bottom of things.


In this case, we already think that the universe traces back to 
a time when only a theory of quantum gravity could hold, the
energy densities are strong enough to tear apart spacetime itself, 
and a regime of physics never encountered in human observation
reigns. In such a situtation, only a fool would be talking about
first causes, etc, becasue the structure of spacetime itself is 
broken down, and it seem s quite possible the classical notion
of causality might not apply. We'll have to await viable theories
of quantum gravity to see what might replace it.




--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Subject: Re: Proof of God's Existence
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 92 04:05:04 GMT

In article <Bu13pL.C83@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> chalmers@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu  
(David Chalmers) writes:

> That seems about right to me.  Here's what the paper has to say:
> 
>   So what is being claimed here, at least, is a sound argument to a
>   true conclusion.  It is only reasonable to add the usual disclaimers.
>   All that the argument seeks to establish is that there is a First
>   Cause. 

The paper in no way establishes there is a first cause. Why can't
philosophers understand this simple proposition: 

YOU CAN'T PROVE ANYTHING ABOUT THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE THROUGH PURE  
CONTEMPLATION.

The best you can do is make predictions, or show that within some 
mathematical theory a certain thing is predicted. 

In this case, all the author did was whip out zorns lemma and 
claim that causal chains satisfy it. Thats real physical.


Also, given that there are good physical theories that lack first 
causes (e.g. GR + big bang, where time goes back indefinitely without a
first time), it is particularly ridiculous for one to claim there
must be a first cause. (Basically the author is claiming that 
his inept wielding of Zorns lemma and his physical predjudices 
provide a superior theory of causality than GR + big bang. Right.)

Finally, I seriously doubt the need of Zorns lemma to establish 
a first cause. It looks to me like either the guy like to pound
nails with a sledge hammer, or he's a philosopher trying to 
impress people with his mathematical (lack of, in fact) prowess.

All in all, an excellent example of my complaint: philosophers 
who try (and fail) to apply the techniques of science and mathematics to
establish 'deep' philosophical truths. Do they ever send phil
papers to real scientists to referee?



--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)


Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech