HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: Science vs Philosophy of
Date: 27 Aug 92 21:40:22 GMT
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Aug27.143116.16970@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> arodgers@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Angus H Rodgers) writes:
>From: arodgers@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Angus H Rodgers)
>Subject: Re: Science vs Philosophy of
>Date: 27 Aug 92 14:31:16 GMT

>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.

>Have I just not been reading the right books? If this is a "frequently
>asked question", it's certainly not a frequently answered one; so a
>careful reply is unlikely to be a waste of bandwidth. If anyone can
>answer it, I'll be grateful; and if anyone can answer it *objectively*,
>I'll fall off my chair in surprise.

>Angus H. Rodgers  (PhD student), | arodgers@dcs.qmw.ac.uk  
>Dept. of Computer Science, Queen | [ +44 | 0 ] 71 975 5248   
>Mary & Westfield College,  Mile  |
>End Rd., London E1 4NS, England  | My other .sig is witty.
>--
>Angus H. Rodgers  (PhD student), | arodgers@dcs.qmw.ac.uk  
>Dept. of Computer Science, Queen | [ +44 | 0 ] 71 975 5248   
>Mary & Westfield College,  Mile  |
>End Rd., London E1 4NS, England  | My other .sig is witty.

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                          *        Welcome to Mind Wars
Ericsson Network Systems, Inc       *        Abstract Arts BBS 386-7907
P.O. Box 833875                     *        Severity with oneself is heroism.
Richardson, TX 75083-3875           *        --A.G.Sertillanges (France, 1943)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
From: steve@hubcap.clemson.edu ("Steve" Stevenson)
Subject: Re: Science vs Philosophy of
Organization: Clemson University
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 14:42:21 GMT

barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) writes:
>In article <1992Aug25.090512.25925@klaava.Helsinki.FI>  

>Hmmm....never heard of them. Apparently their foundational work
>has not actually impacted the theory itself. In which case
>I ask: so what? If the foundational work does not interact with the
>original theory, it doesn't seem so important. Its merely added
>trappings, to comfort those who need comforting.

I believe that Einstein (not a bad theoretical physicist) paraphrased
this line by Rabelais:

 "Wisdom entereth not into a malicious mind, and sceince without conscience
is but the ruin of the soul."

But I really think you miss the point of philosophy of science: it is to
keep everyone straight. Arend Heyting, the intuitionist, made the same
sorts of comments as you are---but he forgot that his mathematics started
because of a philosophical difference between Brouwer and Hilbert.

It seems that it takes both---the philosopher to criticize and the scientist
to counter with a better theory.


-- 
===============================================================================
Steve (really "D. E.") Stevenson           steve@hubcap.clemson.edu
Department of Computer Science,            (803)656-5880.mabell
Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634-1906
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: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 12:59:21 GMT
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.


In article <1992Aug27.185400.4940@porthos.cc.bellcore.com>, jgn@vixen.uucp (22122-niederberger) writes:

|> Equating education with a marketable commodity is rubbish.  No doubt

How very naive.  Education is a marketable commodity (though it need
not be, and is not *only* this).  Further, it is a *big* business at
every level of education in this country.  But aside from that,
I prefer the term "product" to "marketable commodity", and I
continue to believe that if more academics thought of what they
do in this way there would be an improvement in the quality of
education (the product).  Such a conception, and such an improvement
need not follow a cynical line of pandering to the customer (which
is what you seem to fear).  However, it can (and should) lead to
a kind of goal directedness and accountability that is missing
in much of education today.
-- 
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
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Subject: Re: invention of time
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 07:47:41 GMT

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."
> 
>       John E. Snodgrass
>       -----------------
>       snodgras@crash.cts.com

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.


Sorry John. I didn't realize you were one of the "no support for relativity"
crowd. Newton rules! You may want to cross post to  
alt.I.know.not.of.what.I.speak.


--
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: 26 Aug 92 09:57:40 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki

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

>In article <1992Aug25.090512.25925@klaava.Helsinki.FI>  
>amnell@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Marko Amnell) writes:
>> In article <1992Aug25.074717.27139@sics.se> torkel@sics.se 
>> (Torkel Franzen) writes:
>> 
>> >In article <1992Aug24.085622.28313@math.ucla.edu> barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu 
>> >(Barry Merriman) writes:
>> >
>> >   >Hmm, thats interesting.  I have a rather different experience.
>> >   >I _never_ encounter philosophers that have made any useful contribution
>> >   >to our understanding of the physical universe. Are there any?
>> 
>> Bas van Fraassen and Michael Redhead 
>> (contributions to foundations of quantum theory)
>
>Hmmm....never heard of them. Apparently their foundational work
>has not actually impacted the theory itself. In which case
>I ask: so what? If the foundational work does not interact with the
>original theory, it doesn't seem so important. Its merely added
>trappings, to comfort those who need comforting.

'Not my field, but I can say for the record that Van Fraassen did some
important work in quantum logic in the early '70s and Redhead has 
published seminal papers on the foundations of QM and QFT.  This may
not count as "useful contributions to our understading of the physical
universe" to you.  I would disagree, but I'll leave it there.
 
>> >  It's the old "scientist vs philosopher" battle! "Scientists are
>> >philosophically naive - a sorry sight." - "Bah, only somebody who
>> >can't do anything worthwhile in science becomes a philosopher."
>> >
>> >  This whole shtick is an artifact of latter day specialization. Why not
>> >give it a rest?
>
>Sorry, I don't agree. Its much more fundamental than that. I think there
>are serious flaws in the philosophical approach to knowing the universe. 
>Once this became distinct from the scientific ways of knowing, science took
>off, and philosophy, stuck with the useless ways, stagnated. 
>
>I mean, get some perspective: science has exploded, expanded its 
>understanding millions of fold over the past 300 rears. Philosophy
>is still struggling with same old ill-posed questions, and philosophy
>of science is simply riding on the coattails of the scientists, 
>ruminating on their accomplishments with their inneffective digestive system.
>
>If all philosophers of science retired tomorrow, no one would notice.
>If all scientists did, quite the opposite.

I also lament the relative stagnation of philosohy of science.  The
situation in metaphysics is a bit different, I think, since 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.  How far
such a more scientific philosohy could be taken is not clear.  The only
way to find out is to try to develop it.

Marko Amnell
From: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: Science vs Philosophy of
Date: 31 Aug 92 19:12:20 GMT
Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland

In article <1992Aug30.042629.19346@math.ucla.edu> barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) writes:
>In article <7390@skye.ed.ac.uk> jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) writes:
>
>> Part of the reason is that there's often something in the original
>> that was distorted in earlier attempts to extract the concepts themselves.  
>
>If the concept is so particular that its defined as what is present
>in the priginal work, I doubt there is any concept there at all. Simply
>vagues ideas that only had meaning within the authors own way of thinking of  
>it.

You have perhaps confused what I said with something in another message
to which you replied along similar lines.

I did not say the concept was "particular" or "defined as what is
present in the original work".  Nor do I think it should be
so-defined, or even that the original is always best.  Indeed,
the original version of an idea is often worse.  (Similar remarks
apply to "early versions", because the original isn't always 
what's still interesting.)

However, there are often things in the work of earlier phisosophers
that were neglected or misunderstood by later philosophers.  Perhaps
those "later philosophers" had different interests and preconceptions
than we have.  Perhaps they were just careless or lazy.  It varies.

-- jd
From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Science vs Philosophy of
Date: 26 Aug 92 00:22:02 GMT
Article-I.D.: math.1992Aug26.002202.14701
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department

In article <1992Aug25.090512.25925@klaava.Helsinki.FI>  
amnell@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Marko Amnell) writes:
> In article <1992Aug25.074717.27139@sics.se> torkel@sics.se 
> (Torkel Franzen) writes:
> 
> >In article <1992Aug24.085622.28313@math.ucla.edu> barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu 
> >(Barry Merriman) writes:
> >
> >   >Hmm, thats interesting.  I have a rather different experience.
> >   >I _never_ encounter philosophers that have made any useful contribution
> >   >to our understanding of the physical universe. Are there any?
> 
> Bas van Fraassen and Michael Redhead 
> (contributions to foundations of quantum theory)

Hmmm....never heard of them. Apparently their foundational work
has not actually impacted the theory itself. In which case
I ask: so what? If the foundational work does not interact with the
original theory, it doesn't seem so important. Its merely added
trappings, to comfort those who need comforting.

 
> >  It's the old "scientist vs philosopher" battle! "Scientists are
> >philosophically naive - a sorry sight." - "Bah, only somebody who
> >can't do anything worthwhile in science becomes a philosopher."
> >
> >  This whole shtick is an artifact of latter day specialization. Why not
> >give it a rest?

Sorry, I don't agree. Its much more fundamental than that. I think there
are serious flaws in the philosophical approach to knowing the universe. 
Once this became distinct from the scientific ways of knowing, science took
off, and philosophy, stuck with the useless ways, stagnated. 

I mean, get some perspective: science has exploded, expanded its 
understanding millions of fold over the past 300 rears. Philosophy
is still struggling with same old ill-posed questions, and philosophy
of science is simply riding on the coattails of the scientists, 
ruminating on their accomplishments with their inneffective digestive system.

If all philosophers of science retired tomorrow, no one would notice.
If all scientists did, quite the opposite.

--
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: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill)
Subject: Re: Science vs Philosophy of
Originator: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 13:09:49 GMT
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.


In article <1992Aug27.214247.28254@sics.se>, torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen) writes:

|>   What is "historicist" or "sociological" about Lakatos's doctrines
|> regarding "the methodology of scientific research programs"?
...
|>   Actually the people you refer to don't at all claim that philosophy of
|> science = history of science, but that we need to know the history of science
|> in order to do philosophy of science.

You and I have been reading different stuff or reading it differently.
I will come up with some references over the weekend.  Meanwhile,
if you have the time, are so inclined, and have access to the
_Proceedings_ of the Philosophy of Science Association for the 1980
meetings, you might look at "Moderate Historicism and the Empirical
Sense of 'Good Science'".
-- 
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
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Subject: Re: Science vs Philosophy of
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 11:23:09 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.081459.13217@sics.se> torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)  
writes:
> In article <1992Aug26.002202.14701@math.ucla.edu> barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu 
> (Barry Merriman) writes:
> 
>   [Routine philosophy bashing.]
> 
> 
>   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.

Yes, more or less. I have nothing against the "philosophies" that arise
from the development and use of theories, a la Bohr, Einstein, etc. 
Those philosophies are more for practical application (i.e. giving
you a powerful way to think about the new methods) than they are
philosophy in the academic tradition (trying to understand the 
True Nature of things).

But still, why should I not be irritated with academic philosophers?
I view them as intellectual parasites. Thank god they don't cost
much :-) This is not to say that philosophizing is not fun. It can
be good entertainment. It can also be the very start of new ways
of doing things. What philosophers seem to not appreciate is that
is only the very start---not the middle or end as well---of understanding  
things. Its essentially of some creative value, but not analytical 
or deductive value.

--
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: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com (Gary Merrill)
Subject: Re: Science vs Philosophy of
Originator: sasghm@theseus.unx.sas.com
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 13:12:52 GMT
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.


In article <1992Aug28.013928.4918@math.ucla.edu>, barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman) writes:
|> In article <exukjb.97.714929511@exu.ericsson.se> exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken  
|> bell) writes:
|> > 
|> > Intellectual parasites indeed!  Science was born from womb of philosophy!
|> > 
|> 
|> Yes, and so what. An offspring can exceed the capabilities of its parent.
|> 
|> Essentially, there was a time when math, science and philosophy
|> were all all mixed together. Folks like Newton, Liebnitz, Descarte,
                                                   ^^^^^^^^

You gotta wonder about how much Barry's opinions are based on what
he has actually read and how much his understanding of the history
of philosophy and science is based on first-hand familiarity with
it, don't you?


-- 
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
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
From: snodgras@crash.cts.com (John Snodgrass)
Subject: Re: invention of time
Date: 25 Aug 92 21:19:37 GMT

In <gardner.714364794@bruce.cs.monash.edu.au> gardner@cs.monash.edu.au () writes:


>Huh? I must have missed something here. I thought that experiments in the
>'60's confirmed relativistic predictions of time-dilation by showing that
>the half-lives of radioactive particles travelling at relativistic speeds
>were time-dilated (relative to our frame of reference, that is, and perhaps
>this is all you mean when attack the concept of absolute time).

>We're probably just talking about different things, is all.


      I have read a number of times that relativity is so well-confirmed,
to the mind of the writer, that it really is only politely referred to as
a theory, because actually it is a fact. I have heard it compared to evolution
in terms of the amount of evidence which has been gathered to support it,
or the cell theory, or the atom theory (i.e. that matter is composed of atoms).

      In fact, evidence for relativity is all in the realm of the obscure,
or if it's not, it is evidence capable of another interpretation. For instance,
decay of cosmic ray muons is cited as evidence for time dilation, because
they last longer travelling down through the atmosphere at relativistic
speeds than they do when observed in labs at slow speeds. Now, in an
otherwise normal way of looking at it, one might tend to attribute the
difference between the decay rates to the numerous environmental or source
factors related to these different muons. But because it has been explained
away by invocation of the mystical 'time dilation', no one is even investigating
such alternative causes. ("But that would contradict relativity," is often
heard as an argument against some hypothesis, which should give some idea
of how ingrained such notions are.)

      Gravitation is another example. Bending of light in a gravitational
field was cited as confirmation of the notion of curvature of space, in
line with relativity. However, this only makes sense if one assumes that
light is non-material, and therefore could not be deflected by a gravitational
field any other way. But the notion that light is non-material is another
assumption of relativity! A material theory of both light and gravity would
make the same prediction.

      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."

      John E. Snodgrass
      -----------------
      snodgras@crash.cts.com
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
From: barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu (Barry Merriman)
Subject: Re: Science vs Philosophy of
Organization: UCLA, Mathematics Department
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 92 03:48:12 GMT

In article <snodgras.715040900@crash> snodgras@crash.cts.com (John Snodgrass)  
writes:
> 
>       If you suspected that Einstein's ideas might not be correct, you'd
> feel differently about this, because you would wonder how his ideas were
> arrived at. 
> 
>       This, IMO, is a grave mistake on the part of society in structuring
> education. Naturally, when a school of thought arises, its adherents wish
> to teach it and spread it. This leads to a desire not to introduce questions
> into the cirriculum which might create doubt on the part of students. 

While this is certainly true, the question is how crucial is
it to the development of science. I say not very, because:

(1) There is little point in questioning theories until they start to
    fail in the domain in which they were designed to succeed.
    (SR and GR have not, to date...) 

(2) The folks who are going to improve on existing theories or
    invent alternative/unifying  ones are not the casual students or the
    philosophical spectators. They are the researchers in those
    fields, who deal with those theories every day and have a good 
    grasp of the physics & experiments they pertain to.

So, on the whole I don't think your grave concern is justified. There
is no real evidence that science is being stifled by the teaching
of exisitng theories without dwelling on all the things that could
go wrong, or might be lacking. Those are details for the specialists
to deal with. just learn the theory and physics itself, first.

> 
>       You have identified far too closely with your social function,
> and ignored your own personal search for the truth. 

if you mean I'm a blatant scientist, then I agree.

> Your concept of man's
> struggle to understand the universe does not seem broad enough, IMO, for
> you to contribute creatively in any but the most narrow technical endeavor.

well, I'm working on building  nuclear fusion reactors to supply the 
future energy needs of mankind. If that is what you consider a narrow 
technical endeavor, well, what can I say. I certainly don't
feel embarassed about 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: turkel@unixg.ubc.ca (Bill Turkel)
Subject: Re: Science and Philosophy of
Originator: turkel@unixg.ubc.ca
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 16:41:50 GMT


Regarding the "philosophers as intellectual parasites" exchange...

As a Science undergraduate, my most intellectually rewarding course was
a Philosophy course on the Rationalists.  Before the course, I thought
Descartes was simply a mathematician.  I would not have been able to
identify him as a Rationalist, and had never heard of Spinoza.  I thought
Leibniz was a mathematician.  Taking the Philosophy course not only
satisfied an Arts requirement, but it enabled me to understand the debate
over the _tabula rasa_ in a later cognitive psych course, to understand 
the Chomsky that I read for linguistics classes, and led me to some of
Descartes *science* writings.  To many people, anyone who thinks is a 
parasite of some description.

Just my two cents,
Bill
turkel@unixg.ubc.ca
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech