Newsgroups: sci.cognitive,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.philosophy.meta,talk.philosophy.misc
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!udel!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!dorite!dbreece
From: dbreece@dorite.use.com (Dave Breece)
Subject: Re: What rock have _you_ been hiding under? (Was: PACCS Program)
Message-ID: <D3rrx3.M0t@dorite.use.com>
Organization: IQuest Network Services
References: <3gme3g$alq@bingnet1.cc.binghamton.edu> <bryanras-0302951641210001@128.158.217.152> <gall-0402951053510001@dyn1-093.cc.umanitoba.ca> <bryanras-0902950901530001@128.158.217.152>
Distribution: inet
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 1995 05:43:50 GMT
Lines: 91
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu sci.cognitive:6490 comp.ai.philosophy:25416 sci.philosophy.tech:16776 sci.philosophy.meta:16366

In article <bryanras-0902950901530001@128.158.217.152>,
Bryan Rasmussen <bryanras@freedom.msfc.nasa.gov> wrote:
>In article <gall-0402951053510001@dyn1-093.cc.umanitoba.ca>,
>gall@cc.umanitoba.ca (Norman R. Gall) wrote:
>
>> In article <bryanras-0302951641210001@128.158.217.152>,
>> bryanras@freedom.msfc.nasa.gov (Bryan Rasmussen) wrote:
>> 
>> >In article <gall-0302951029280001@dyn2-035.cc.umanitoba.ca>,
>> >gall@cc.umanitoba.ca (Norman R. Gall) wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> Keep in mind that a great deal of philosopy deals with things which
>> >> science cannot touch (i.e. metaphysics, epistemology) as they are simply
>> >> not empirical in nature.  Now, whether _I_ think these things are as they
>> >> are characterised; that is a different issue.
>> >> 
>> >> Norm Gall
>> >
>> >   Watch out here.  You assume that science and empiricism are the same
>> >thing.  I have done some thinking (and even some writing) on the subject,
>> >and believe that assumption to be false. 
>> 
>> I make no such assumption and few would.  I simply said that sceince
>> cannot deal with questions which are not empirical.  I'm pretty sure I'm
>> on safe ground here.
>
>   What about mathematics?  What is the empiricism there?  Math is a
>completely logical exercise which exists apart from physical observation.
>It does not need physical applications. 

Not to mention time.  None of the five senses used there, yet science
frequently makes use of the concept.  Astrophysics especially, with
their studies of space/time.

>   Actually, I disagree that even physical science cannot deal with
>questions that are not empirical.  Empiricism says, basically, that we can
>only know what we observe. (Is that a fair definition?) 
>   Nevertheless, physical science is dealing with cause-and-effect, wich
>is definitely non-empirical.  General relativity implies "spheres" of
>influence outside of which an event cannot affect other objects.  That
>notion is, by definition, unobservable.  Once you observe the sphere, you
>are inside it.

And quantum theory.  The whole field is largely unobservable.  Half of
the field doesn't even exist in this dimension!


>> >   Science has changed drastically, especially over the last century. 
>> 
>> Well, the _doing_ of science hasn't changed that much (except of course
>> sociologically), and some things which hertofore were considered a
>> conceptual question are now beiong dealt with empirically, but I'm not
>> sure that the character of science is such that it couldn't be recognised
>> by, say, Helmholtz.

>   The _doing_ of science has changed.  Physics seems to have split into
>two groups: the theorists and the experimenters.  
>   Are the theorists authentic scientists?  How do you decide what
>"authentic" scientists are?  I say that the definition of science is
>changing with its methods.  

The definition of science, and the role of science is definatly
changing, and will continue to change as we come to understand
the nature of our reality.  Our "laws" of nature are being rewritten as
each new generation of scientists discovers new information that the
previous generations couldn't even comprehend.

>> I just can't see why the science and philosophy of 100 years from now will
>> be 'different' in any non-trivial unexpected way (i.e. that philosophy and
>> science will have progressed and have different methods and received
>> wisdoms).

What you've got too see is that science and philosophy are destined to
be one and the same.  It's inevitable that they come to the same
conclusion in the end.  What conclusion might that be?  Not my job...I'm
a chef.

Fritjof Capra does a lot better job explaining this than I do.  Check
out _The Tao of Physics_ (isbn 0-394-71612-4), where he talks about the
parallels between modern physics and eastern philosophy.

Or, if you want the condensed version, check out the movie _MindWalk_.
I recommend both!



-- 
===============================================================================
Dave Breece                                If the doors of perception were
dbreece@use.com                           Cleansed, everything would appear
http://www.iquest.net/dave/welcome.html    As it is, Infinite.    W. Blake
