Most Noble Science: Math or Theology?

[JohnDamian]

Ibn al-Haytham, Islamic Philosopher & Mathematician in his book of Optics,
Al-Biruni, Persian Philosopher, Theologian and Sociologist, in his book on Minerology,
Avicenna, Islamic Chemist, Philosopher and Theologian, in his book on Healing,

The ideas of Aristotle were developed by these three to provide a framework which later thinkers would develop into scientific method.

Robert Grosseteste, Philosopher and Theologian, in his Treatise on Posterior Analytics
Roger Bacon, Fransiscan Friar, Philosopher and Theologian, provided the basic framework for science; “observation, hypothesis, experimentation,” in the Opus Majus, Opus Minus, and Opus Tertium.

These are the five founders of modern Scientific Method, which sprang from two schools of philosophy with regards to treating the world, these schools were “Empiricism”, a school of epistimology - providing a way of analysing and understanding the world, and “Realism”, a school of ontology - a school for defining the nature of the world.

If you had done lets say, a PhD, or doctor of philosophy in Science, you would have come to understand that modern scientific method is the product of two influential schools of philosophical enquiry.



Logic and analytics is essential to physical science, as it interlinks researched findings and extrapolated them into hypothesis and ideas; furthermore, the research methodologies and constructs for generating reliable and valid data are provided by the Philosophical school of Epistimology; without which any research conducted would be unorganised and unintelligable.

Philosophy gave birth to Science, like it gave birth to human rights, democracy and many other things. And it is still alive in them today.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Ibn al-Haytham, Islamic Philosopher & Mathematician in his book of Optics,
Al-Biruni, Persian Philosopher, Theologian and Sociologist, in his book on Minerology,
Avicenna, Islamic Chemist, Philosopher and Theologian, in his book on Healing,

The ideas of Aristotle were developed by these three to provide a framework which later thinkers would develop into scientific method.

Robert Grosseteste, Philosopher and Theologian, in his Treatise on Posterior Analytics
Roger Bacon, Fransiscan Friar, Philosopher and Theologian, provided the basic framework for science; “observation, hypothesis, experimentation,” in the Opus Majus, Opus Minus, and Opus Tertium.

These are the five founders of modern Scientific Method, which sprang from two schools of philosophy with regards to treating the world, these schools were “Empiricism”, a school of epistimology - providing a way of analysing and understanding the world, and “Realism”, a school of ontology - a school for defining the nature of the world.

If you had done lets say, a PhD, or doctor of philosophy in Science, you would have come to understand that modern scientific method is the product of two influential schools of philosophical enquiry.



Logic and analytics is essential to physical science, as it interlinks researched findings and extrapolated them into hypothesis and ideas; furthermore, the research methodologies and constructs for generating reliable and valid data are provided by the Philosophical school of Epistimology; without which any research conducted would be unorganised and unintelligable.

Philosophy gave birth to Science, like it gave birth to human rights, democracy and many other things. And it is still alive in them today.

I would find this a lot easier to take seriously if there were any consensus among scientists that agrees with it. There just isn’t. No scientist would ever base an experiment on classical logic or epistomology. Any scientist who ever did would be drummed out of the scientific community and his or her career ruined. He would be labelled a crank by other scientists.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Roger Bacon, Fransiscan Friar, Philosopher and Theologian, provided the basic framework for science; “observation, hypothesis, experimentation,” in the Opus Majus, Opus Minus, and Opus Tertium.

Well, now we’re actually getting somewhere…

Observation, Hypothesis, Experimentation and Repetition…

 

[Geremia]

“The philosophy of science is as much use to a scientist and ornithology is to a bird.” --Richard Feynman.

Was he referring to the philosophy of the methodology of modern science or to how philosophy relates to modern science itself? Aristotle said: “it is absurd to seek at the same time knowledge and the way of attaining knowledge” ( IIMetaphys. §3), so this would rule out methodological philosophers of science from simultaneously doing the science whose methodology they seek, but not philosophers in the broad sense. In St. Thomas’s Commentary on Aristotle’s Metaphysics, he says:

He says, first, that since different men use different methods in the search for truth, one must be trained in the method which the particular sciences must use to investigate their subject. And since it is not easy for a man to undertake two things at once (indeed, so long as he tries to do both he can succeed in neither), it is absurd for a man to try to acquire a science and at the same time to acquire the method proper to that science. This is why a man should learn logic before any of the other sciences, because logic considers the general method of procedure in all the other sciences. Moreover, the method appropriate to the particular sciences should be considered at the beginning of these sciences.

Aristotle then continues, mentioning mathematics:

But the exactness of mathematics is not to be expected in all cases, but only in those which have no matter. This is why its method is not that of natural philosophy; for perhaps the whole of nature contains matter. Hence we must first investigate what nature is; for in this way it will become evident what the things are with which natural philosophy deals, and whether it belongs to one science or to several to consider the causes and principles of things.

To which St. Thomas comments:

He shows that the method which is absolutely the best should not be demanded in all the sciences. He says that the “exactness,” i.e., the careful and certain demonstrations, found in mathematics should not be demanded in the case of all things of which we have science, but only in the case of those things which have no matter; for things that have matter are subject to motion and change, and therefore in their case complete certitude cannot be had. For in the case of these things we do not look for what exists always and of necessity, but only for what exists in the majority of cases.

Now immaterial things are most certain by their very nature because they are unchangeable, although they are not certain to us because our intellectual power is weak, as was stated above (279). The separate substances are things of this kind. But while the things with which mathematics deals are abstracted from matter, they do not surpass our understanding; and therefore in their case most certain reasoning is demanded.

Thus he agrees that the method of mathematics is ideal because of its exactness or “nobility,” but one cannot follow it in physics. But what about theology? The "things with which [it] deals are abstracted from matter, they do …] surpass our understanding,"right? So it is noble in a different sense.

 

[JohnDamian]

I would find this a lot easier to take seriously if there were any consensus among scientists that agrees with it. There just isn’t. No scientist would ever base an experiment on classical logic or epistomology. Any scientist who ever did would be drummed out of the scientific community and his or her career ruined. He would be labelled a crank by other scientists.

Logical empiricism (aka logical positivism or neopositivism) was an early 20th century attempt to synthesize the essential ideas of British empiricism (e.g. a strong emphasis on sensory experience as the basis for knowledge) with certain insights from mathematical logic that had been developed by Gottlob Frege and Ludwig Wittgenstein. Some of the key figures in this movement were Otto Neurath, Moritz Schlick and the rest of the Vienna Circle, along with A.J. Ayer, Rudolf Carnap and Hans Reichenbach. The neopositivists subscribed to a notion of philosophy as the conceptual clarification of the methods, insights and discoveries of the sciences. They saw in the logical symbolism elaborated by Frege (d. 1925) and Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) a powerful instrument that could rationally reconstruct all scientific discourse into an ideal, logically perfect, language that would be free of the ambiguities and deformations of natural language. This gave rise to what they saw as metaphysical pseudoproblems and other conceptual confusions. By combining Frege’s thesis that all mathematical truths are logical with the early Wittgenstein’s idea that all logical truths are mere linguistic tautologies, they arrived at a twofold classification of all propositions: the analytic (a priori) and the synthetic (a posteriori). On this basis, they formulated a strong principle of demarcation between sentences that have sense and those that do not: the so-called verification principle. Any sentence that is not purely logical, or is unverifiable is devoid of meaning. As a result, most metaphysical, ethical, aesthetic and other traditional philosophical problems came to be considered pseudoproblems.

So, you say no serious scientist would subscribe to philosophical ideas (positivism), or any of the (emboldened) ideas quoted above?

I think most if not all physical scientists believe in phenomanae insofar as they are verifiable, repeatable and proveable…

Well, now we’re actually getting somewhere…

Observation, Hypothesis, Experimentation and Repetition…

Yes.

This is Empiricism

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism

In philosophy, empiricism is a theory of knowledge that asserts that knowledge arises from sense experience. Empiricism is one of several competing views that predominate in the study of human knowledge, known as epistemology. Empiricism emphasizes the role of experience and evidence, especially sensory perception, in the formation of ideas, while discounting the notion of innate ideas (except in so far as these might be inferred from empirical reasoning, as in the case of genetic predisposition

You are revealing your complete lack of knowlege about philosophy here

However, I’ll just say I am not an empiricist (hence my “attitude” towards it)… But to deny that science is based upon this epistimological school, Empiricism; the principles of perception, repetition, evaluation, hypothesis and so forth is almost amusing.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Logical empiricism (aka logical positivism or neopositivism) was an early 20th century attempt to synthesize the essential ideas of British empiricism (e.g. a strong emphasis on sensory experience as the basis for knowledge) with certain insights from mathematical logic that had been developed by Gottlob Frege and Ludwig Wittgenstein. Some of the key figures in this movement were Otto Neurath, Moritz Schlick and the rest of the Vienna Circle, along with A.J. Ayer, Rudolf Carnap and Hans Reichenbach. The neopositivists subscribed to a notion of philosophy as the conceptual clarification of the methods, insights and discoveries of the sciences. They saw in the logical symbolism elaborated by Frege (d. 1925) and Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) a powerful instrument that could rationally reconstruct all scientific discourse into an ideal, logically perfect, language that would be free of the ambiguities and deformations of natural language. This gave rise to what they saw as metaphysical pseudoproblems and other conceptual confusions. By combining Frege’s thesis that all mathematical truths are logical with the early Wittgenstein’s idea that all logical truths are mere linguistic tautologies, they arrived at a twofold classification of all propositions: the analytic (a priori) and the synthetic (a posteriori). On this basis, they formulated a strong principle of demarcation between sentences that have sense and those that do not: the so-called verification principle. Any sentence that is not purely logical, or is unverifiable is devoid of meaning. As a result, most metaphysical, ethical, aesthetic and other traditional philosophical problems came to be considered pseudoproblems.

So, you say no serious scientist would subscribe to philosophical ideas (positivism), or any of the (emboldened) ideas quoted above?

I think most if not all physical scientists believe in phenomanae insofar as they are verifiable, repeatable and proveable…

I don’t think that any scientist would operate under the terms you have emboldened in that post. In fact, I think you’ll find that the majority of scientists wouldn’t even know what some of these terms mean. Science is not a linguistic pursuit.

You are revealing your complete lack of knowlege about philosophy here

You do understand that I have never actually claimed to have any knowledge of philosophy?

However, I’ll just say I am not an empiricist (hence my “attitude” towards it)… But to deny that science is based upon this epistimological school, Empiricism; the principles of perception, repetition, evaluation, hypothesis and so forth is almost amusing.

Epistimology is not a word you’ll ever hear scienitists use. I’m sure that in philosophical terms you are correct, but to a scientist this is jibberish.

 

[rvilbig]

In St. Thomas Aquinas’s Sententia Metaphysicae, lib. 3 l. 4 n. 7, his commentary on Aristotle’s Metaphysics lib. 3 cap. 2, he says:Yet, in his Summa Theologica Iª q. 1 a. 5 co. he says theology is the noblest:

Perhaps more interesting than either math or theology are the questions where they intersect. Consider Aquinas’ commentary on the Omnipotence paradox:

Again, since the principles of certain sciences—of logic, geometry, and arithmetic, for instance—are derived exclusively from the formal principles of things, upon which their essence depends, it follows that God cannot make the contraries of those principles; He cannot make the genus not to be predicable of the species, nor lines drawn from a circle’s center to its circumference not to be equal, nor the three angles of a rectilinear triangle not to be equal to two right angles. (Summa Contra Gentiles, Book 2, Section 25)

Since forms have their existence in God, and since math is formal, it seems that math is really a branch of theology. I think…

-Ryan Vilbig
ryan.vilbig@gmail.com

 

[Moonstruck888]

Since forms have their existence in God, and since math is formal, it seems that math is really a branch of theology. I think…

Good luck getting mathematicians to agree with the redesignation. Remember what happened when Christians in the USA tried to have Biology redesignated as a branch of Theology.

 

[JohnDamian]

I don’t think that any scientist would operate under the terms you have emboldened in that post. In fact, I think you’ll find that the majority of scientists wouldn’t even know what some of these terms mean. Science is not a linguistic pursuit.

The only word that was emboldened that is specifically philosophical is “neopositivist”. I can understand not knowing that one, but if someone is ignorant of the rest then they must have flunked English lessons.

You do understand that I have never actually claimed to have any knowledge of philosophy?

For someone who doesn’t know alot about philosophy you are quite hostile… And you seem awfully confident that the stuff you evidently do not understand is “gibberish”. I could quite easily and arrogantly claim that all scientific theories and hocus pocus silly nonsense quantum mechanics and all that naff is wrong and meaningless gobbledegook… but I don’t so do because I don’t go around in a field I know nothing about and call “nonsense” when infact it is only my own ignorance that fails to comprehend the argument.

And beside, at least I have reasons for being hostile to science, and scientific method. Namely because of it’s absurd predication of the senses over logic, which entails a contradiction. (the act of the claim admits the priority of logic; yet claims the priority of the senses, which is absurd).

Epistimology is not a word you’ll ever hear scienitists use. I’m sure that in philosophical terms you are correct, but to a scientist this is jibberish.

Epistimology is what the philosophers used to create scientific “methodology”. We created the frameworks for their begoggled and balding heads to apply to the world they percieve.

Philosophy designed the framework of science, consider this analogy;

We (philosophers) design and build a car (scientific method)
You (Physical Scientists) drive the car.(scientific method)

Without us, you would never have a car (scientific method) to apply to anything.

Incidentally, if the scientists you hang around with don’t speak about “research methodologies” or “research validity” and “reliability”, then God help us all.

Good luck getting mathematicians to agree with the redesignation. Remember what happened when Christians in the USA tried to have Biology redesignated as a branch of Theology.

I am glad you said “RE-designated”, because originally biology was part of a subject called “natural theology”, which then became the physical sciences.

 

[Moonstruck888]

The only word that was emboldened that is specifically philosophical is “neopositivist”. I can understand not knowing that one, but if someone is ignorant of the rest then they must have flunked English lessons.

“…that could rationally reconstruct all scientific discourse into an ideal, logically perfect, language that would be free of the ambiguities and deformations of natural language.”

What does this have to do with the scientific method?

For someone who doesn’t know alot about philosophy you are quite hostile… And you seem awfully confident that the stuff you evidently do not understand is “gibberish”. I could quite easily and arrogantly claim that all scientific theories and hocus pocus silly nonsense quantum mechanics and all that naff is wrong and meaningless gobbledegook… but I don’t so do because I don’t go around in a field I know nothing about and call “nonsense” when infact it is only my own ignorance that fails to comprehend the argument.

I’m calling you out on talking rubbish with regards to a field, science, that I do know. I have no problem with philosophers wrestling with the imponderables of metaphysics, but when they put logic against the scientific method, I’m afraid the achievements of science speak for themselves. It’s a fight that science is bound to win.

And beside, at least I have reasons for being hostile to science, and scientific method. Namely because of it’s absurd predication of the senses over logic, which entails a contradiction. (the act of the claim admits the priority of logic; yet claims the priority of the senses, which is absurd).

Science doesn’t predict the human senses over logic. It predicts the ever increasing scope of human observation at large over logic, and rightly so.

Epistimology is what the philosophers used to create scientific “methodology”. We created the frameworks for their begoggled and balding heads to apply to the world they percieve.

Philosophy designed the framework of science, consider this analogy;

We (philosophers) design and build a car (scientific method)
You (Physical Scientists) drive the car.(scientific method)

Without us, you would never have a car (scientific method) to apply to anything.

Incidentally, if the scientists you hang around with don’t speak about “research methodologies” or “research validity” and “reliability”, then God help us all.

It’s a simplistic and flawed analogy. The minute the early scientists, to hoist you on your own petard, predicted observation over logic, they ceased to be philosophers.

 

[Moonstruck888]

I am glad you said “RE-designated”, because originally biology was part of a subject called “natural theology”, which then became the physical sciences.

In the unlikely event that is true and isn’t more butchery of concepts under your hook and scalple, I forgive them their trespasses as back in those days they knew not what they did.

 

[JohnDamian]

Science doesn’t predict the human senses over logic. It predicts the ever increasing scope of human observation at large over logic, and rightly so.

Ah, but is not their act of doing so following “logic”, for to make such a value judgement they require the implementation of logic; and in doing so they automatically place at least one logical construct before the observed world.

“…that could rationally reconstruct all scientific discourse into an ideal, logically perfect, language that would be free of the ambiguities and deformations of natural language.” What does this have to do with the scientific method?

Algebra is used alot in presenting ideas.

I’m calling you out on talking rubbish with regards to a field, science, that I do know. I have no problem with philosophers wrestling with the imponderables of metaphysics, but when they put logic against the scientific method, I’m afraid the achievements of science speak for themselves. It’s a fight that science is bound to win.

Sorry, the “scientific method” belongs to logic and philosophers. Sure, the data you collected is yours; but the method belongs to us; particularily to Roger Bacon OFM

*Experimental science, which in the Opus Tertium (p. 46) is distinguished from the speculative sciences and the operative arts, is said to have three great prerogatives over all sciences:

1. It verifies their conclusions by direct experiment;
2. It discovers truths which they could never reach;
3. It investigates the secrets of nature, and opens to us a knowledge of past and future.*

In developing the theory of practical science, this Fransiscan Philosopher created the modern scientific method of observation, hypothesis, experimentation. This theory is a construct made from epistemological study in philosophy, and is a logical theory.

Furthermore, no one in their right mind places observed reality infront of logic. If logic is correct, it is never against observed reality (feel free to give an example if otherwise) however, sometimes interpretations of observed reality are logically determined to be inconsistent - such as the observation that the Sun appears to orbit the Earth.

Using Logic, Roger Bacon OFM was able to determine that the Earth was round, despite theories at the time that were contrary to this. This was presented in his Opus Magnus. Roger took the data he collected by observing the world at different heights and applied a type of analytic philosophy to it; wherein he was able to (using inductive reasoning), project that the Earth was round.

Logic is better than observed realities. Observations can be flawed, skewed or misleading; especially so because of the counter-intuitive nature of alot of things in the world. Logic however is perfect, if a Logical proposition is true it is certain; wheras if an observation is true; it does not mean that it is certain – because that observation is subject to interpretation – which is where problems occur.

However, Logic is not “against” observed reality. It is merely a more certain and sensible way of understanding the world, and is less subject to flaws and misinterpretations.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Furthermore, no one in their right mind places observed reality infront of logic.

Then we have nothing more to discuss. This is a debate that we are forever bound to be on opposite sides of.

Good luck to you.

 

[ddarko]

Much as I hate appeals to authority, Richard Feynman is an authority on science. Anything he says about science you can take to the bank.

I see. So let me understand you properly. The use of statistics (logic), Calculus (logic), for an example are science and not logic?

Feynman might be your childhood hero but it really looks like he is going a bit beyond what he knows and shows a lack of philosophical knowledge on Science.

From experience of knowing many of them well and knowing their opinions. They’re were three hundred people in my lecture group at Paisley University, and not one of them ever mentioned logic, including the lecturers.

Haha ok probably so. But I will bet you they mentioned, ‘statistical significance’, ‘differential equation’, etc which are logical concepts and NOT scientific ones.

They most definitely are doing it implicitly. I studied science for years and didn’t find out what a logical absolute was until I stumbled across this forum. Knowing the law of contradiction as I do now would not have one iota of effect on how I would perform an experiment.

Ignorance can be bliss. But, when scientist step over the line and claim more than what they can do, this ignorance starts to show.

While its obviously possible to produce results from a system of axioms, knowing the limitations is key. Otherwise you run the risk of thinking what your system find is all there is like most scientist today.

A lot of theoretical physics is pseudoscience.

That’s a little too harsh I would say. According to you, most of the so called big names of current science such as Hawkings is engaged in pseudoscience.

But the funny thing is, you can’t really call something pseudoscience unless you have a concrete logically consistent definition of what Science is

These distinctions would only be important to a philosopher. What a scientist needs to know is how to set up proper controls for an experiment to see if it verifies or falsifies a particular hypothesis.

Again true. BUT, he needs to know the range of truths he can find and things he cannot find. I will bet you anything that most scientist don’t even realize that the empirical method used in science is NOT proven or discoverable by science. Sooner the scientist realize what they can’t find the better. Your argument that not knowing is better sounds more like an argument from a pagan religion.

When Hook did his elastic regime experiments, or Boyle his pressure experiments, they were focused on obtaining answers to specific questions, in the first case about how materials behave under stress and in the second case about how pressurized gases behave. They were not worrying about abstract concepts of higher truth or invalidating religion. To a scientist, these things are irrelevant to his work.

lol you see. You seem to be under the impression that to ask Scientist to be logical is asking them to NOT invalidate religion. On the contrary, its just asking Scientist to know the truths they can actually analyze and the ones that they cannot. In other words, its asking scientist to be rational

God Bless

 

[Areopagite]

A dilettante might fool around with musical instruments without knowing anything about music. I’d hardly, lol, describe such a person as a musician. Any competant professional musician has an extensive knowledge in technical terms of music. Anyone who does not is an amateur.

So … were there no musicians until formal musical theory was invented?

What you’re saying constitutes a musician is like saying that anyone who offers an opinion on anything is a philosopher.

There is systematic philosophy (a science of philosophy) and then there is unsystematic philosophy (not a science of philosophy). One who knows the former can be called a systematic philosopher, the other can be called a philosopher … though perhaps not a very good one (though, as long as he deals with issues pertaining to the most important aspects of existence, he is technically doing philosophy). In any case, systematic philosophy is a science.

The defintion I use pertains to every science that has not been thoroughly routed from the academic arena.

I don’t know what you mean by this.

Yes, it would be fair. You’ll find many examples of famous scientists saying things that are counter to logic. Even Einstein.

You may even find many examples of famous physicists saying things counter to physics. Not sure what your point is.

Now, to be even clear, you have said that physicists aren’t logical … so thus is physics illogical?

Because that is what a scientists does. Science is an heuristic. Observe → Hypothesize → Experiment → Repeat.

This is what a physical scientist does once again.

You don’t have to be a great thinker to be competent scientist. All you have to understand is how to apply this method. How far do you think Robert Boyle would have gotten in trying to figure out the relationship between the pressure and volume of a given amount of gas using logic alone?

Am I advocating that Robert Boyle should have figured out the relationship between pressue and volume in gas by logic alone? I don’t remember saying that.

What I am saying is that “science” since the beginning means “an organized body of knowledge” and is still widely used that way today. I don’t know why your example here disproves my statement.

It would be impossible. By using the above heuristic, he could compress different gases to different volumes at varying temperatures and study the results using atmospheric pressure as a control.

Good. I have no objection to his methods … because, after all, he used a methodology appropriate to his physical science.

Why on Earth, in studying the behaviour of gases in this way, would Boyle waste time thinking about logical abstractions?

He didn’t waste time with logical abstraction … nay, he depended on them. I assume, for example, that he depended on math to conduct his experiment, right? If he depended on math, then he depended on logical abstractions. Hence, logical abstractions are necessary for this particular example of physical science.

Why not? If he’s trained to act like a physicist, he’ll act like a physicist. Modern science evolved very gradually over centuries. It wasn’t invented by a committee of philosophers.

Yeah it was. I refer to JohnDamian’s posts.

By the way, you still haven’t given a reason why “science” should not be defined as “an organized body of knowledge.” You seem to limit it simply to the physical sciences just because you’ve been told to.

Also, why should a committee of physical scientists be the one to define what “science” means, since many people (including philosophers, linguists, theologians, logicians, etc.) have been using “science” to describe their fields too, long before anyone tried to limit it to just the physical world?

 

[Young_Thinker]

This reminds me that Avicenna said that mathematics and metaphysics(a branch of philosophy are the most difficult of sciences(though the term “scientist” did not exist at the time). Interestingly, a no. of fields have been called “Queen of the Sciences,” including medicine and mathematics. While numbers and equations are beautiful in a philosophical sense, I feel that they are more of a tool than an independent entity in our world.

 

[Moonstruck888]

I see. So let me understand you properly. The use of statistics (logic), Calculus (logic), for an example are science and not logic?

Feynman might be your childhood hero but it really looks like he is going a bit beyond what he knows and shows a lack of philosophical knowledge on Science.

That would be because he wasn’t a philosopher. You wouldn’t expect a Historian to be an expert of Geography would you? Why then would you expect a scientist to study a field with an equally tenuous relationship to his own?

Statistics I would say is applied maths. Calculus you would need to define more carefully. Do you mean calculus in relation to differentials and integrals or in relation to logical truth tables?

Haha ok probably so. But I will bet you they mentioned, ‘statistical significance’, ‘differential equation’, etc which are logical concepts and NOT scientific ones.

Almost never, if at all. There was some mathematics discussed, but nothing terribly difficult.

Ignorance can be bliss. But, when scientist step over the line and claim more than what they can do, this ignorance starts to show.

While its obviously possible to produce results from a system of axioms, knowing the limitations is key. Otherwise you run the risk of thinking what your system find is all there is like most scientist today.

Anything that cannot be emprically demonstrated, I treat with skepticism.

That’s a little too harsh I would say. According to you, most of the so called big names of current science such as Hawkings is engaged in pseudoscience.

Yes, he is, but he is also careful to differentiate between what is known and what is an umproven possibility.

But the funny thing is, you can’t really call something pseudoscience unless you have a concrete logically consistent definition of what Science is

I have. It’s just that you seem to prefer an ancient definition from centuries before there was such a thing as modern science to the one used by modern scientists.

Again true. BUT, he needs to know the range of truths he can find and things he cannot find. I will bet you anything that most scientist don’t even realize that the empirical method used in science is NOT proven or discoverable by science. Sooner the scientist realize what they can’t find the better. Your argument that not knowing is better sounds more like an argument from a pagan religion.

Only if you’ve totally misunderstood my argument. A scientists needs to know the scope and limitations of his experiments, that much is true. He does this by building on the knowledge and experience of previous scientists.

As for the empirical method not being proven, I refer you, again, to results. Micro processors, extended lifespans, control and elimination of many diseases, vaccines, anti biotics, near instantaneous global communications…

lol you see. You seem to be under the impression that to ask Scientist to be logical is asking them to NOT invalidate religion. On the contrary, its just asking Scientist to know the truths they can actually analyze and the ones that they cannot. In other words, its asking scientist to be rational God Bless

I just think that asking a scientist to be logical is silly. It’s just as silly as asking a philosopher to put observation above reason.

 

[Moonstruck888]

So … were there no musicians until formal musical theory was invented?

You build me a time machine and I’ll go and find out. If there were, they obviously had some conception of what music was about. Otherewise, how would they have tuned their instruments? Unless of course you want to define a caveman who bangs to sticks together as a musician, but I think we can both agree that would be stretching the definition a little too far.

There is systematic philosophy (a science of philosophy) and then there is unsystematic philosophy (not a science of philosophy). One who knows the former can be called a systematic philosopher, the other can be called a philosopher … though perhaps not a very good one (though, as long as he deals with issues pertaining to the most important aspects of existence, he is technically doing philosophy). In any case, systematic philosophy is a science.

Google doesn’t seem to agree with you. Systematic philosophy is described as a philosophy of science, not as a science.

I don’t know what you mean by this.

I mean that pseudoscience does not pass mustard when peer reviewed.

Now, to be even clear, you have said that physicists aren’t logical … so thus is physics illogical?

Physics puts observational data above logic, so I would imagine that must make it illogical, wouldn’t you?

This is what a physical scientist does once again.

It is what any scientist who isn’t a fraud and a crank does.

Am I advocating that Robert Boyle should have figured out the relationship between pressue and volume in gas by logic alone? I don’t remember saying that.

But being that logic is superior to science and all encompassing, surely that is exactly what you and your friends here have been advocating?

What I am saying is that “science” since the beginning means “an organized body of knowledge” and is still widely used that way today. I don’t know why your example here disproves my statement.

And what I am saying is that while your definition may have been fit for purpose back in the days while our Lord was walking the Earth, nowadays in the modern era it simply will not do. It is not precise enough, it is not pertinent enough.

He didn’t waste time with logical abstraction … nay, he depended on them. I assume, for example, that he depended on math to conduct his experiment, right? If he depended on math, then he depended on logical abstractions. Hence, logical abstractions are necessary for this particular example of physical science.

The maths in his experiment is Mickey Mouse stuff.

Boyles Law: pV = k

p denotes the pressure of the system.
V denotes the volume of the gas.
k is a constant value representative of the pressure and volume of the system.

He depended on observations of experiments done with physical apparatus to do his experiments. As a matter of fact, what he was doing when he discovered his relationship was working on building a pump.

Yeah it was. I refer to JohnDamian’s posts.

That argument has already been debunked.

By the way, you still haven’t given a reason why “science” should not be defined as “an organized body of knowledge.” You seem to limit it simply to the physical sciences just because you’ve been told to.

I have already told you, time and time again, that the definition you have is no longer fit for purpose because it is too vague and impertinent to define modern science.

 

[Geremia]

To paraphrase Earnest Rutherford, all science is either physics, applied phyiscs, or stamp collecting…

It sounds like he was an advocate of scientism, then (Fides et Ratio 88.).

Moonstruck888;6764362:

The philosophy of science is as much use to a scientist and ornithology is to a bird." --Richard Feynman.

Much as I hate appeals to authority, Richard Feynman is an authority on science. Anything he says about science you can take to the bank.

Based on this Feynman quote, Einstein was clearly more openly philosophical than Feynman; in fact Einstein was deeply interested in Catholic theology, especially the transubstantiation, and the philosophy of Mach inspired his theory of relativity, which he preferred be called the “theory of invariants” to avoid seeming to promote relativism. Heisenberg was openly philosophical, too, especially later in his life when he wrote Physics and Philosophy, in which he said that the probability wave “was a quantitative version of the concept of ‘potentia’ in Aristotelian philosophy” (p. 41) and that the “concept of the soul for instance in the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas was more natural and less forced than the Cartesian concept of ‘res cogitans,’ even if we are convinced that the laws of physics and chemistry are strictly valid in living organisms.” (p. 80). Even Feynman’s comment itself asserts a philosophy, namely that of scientism; everyone does philosophy. For more info, read these articles.

 

[Moonstruck888]

It sounds like he was an advocate of scientism, then (Fides et Ratio 88.).Based on this Feynman quote, Einstein was clearly more openly philosophical than Feynman; in fact Einstein was deeply interested in Catholic theology, especially the transubstantiation, and the philosophy of Mach inspired his theory of relativity, which he preferred be called the “theory of invariants” to avoid seeming to promote relativism. Heisenberg was openly philosophical, too, especially later in his life when he wrote Physics and Philosophy, in which he said that the probability wave “was a quantitative version of the concept of ‘potentia’ in Aristotelian philosophy” (p. 41) and that the “concept of the soul for instance in the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas was more natural and less forced than the Cartesian concept of ‘res cogitans,’ even if we are convinced that the laws of physics and chemistry are strictly valid in living organisms.” (p. 80). Even Feynman’s comment itself asserts a philosophy, namely that of scientism; everyone does philosophy. For more info, read these articles.

There’s no reason why someone of a scientific bent cannot take an interest in things outside science. I myself am interested in the philosophies of Miriam Simos and Aleister Crowley. That doesn’t mean that when I look up into the night sky I actually believe that the Milky Way is Nuit making love with the ground. I’m also interested in Chakral Cleansing and meditation. That does not interfere with my ability to think scientifically.