The Radical Academy Discussion Forum
Philosophy, Politics, and the Human Condition
|
||
| Search For Similar Forums · Return to Website | ||
 First |
 Prev |
 Reply |
 Home |
Next  |
Last  |
| Viewing Page 1 of 1 (Total Posts: 39) |
| Author | Comment |
Ivo
 Oct 23, 07 - 8:32 PM |
definition of science
Is science a creative process which creates order in our observations of the world around us (physicist Douglas Giancoli)? OR Does science require abstention from and relentless critique of prejudice? And does the diligent observation and intelligent combination of experience and hypotheses concerning “the design” underlying the whole natural order therefore require humility that the truth is out there to be found? Does this second view exclude experiments? Does Giancoli’s quoted definition in the 2007 edition of his book “Physics” of science entail that science does not relate directly to nature, but only to our observations of it? |
|
Kevin
Oct 25th, 2007 - 1:12 AM |
Re: definition of science
definition of science IVO: Is science a creative process which creates order in our observations of the world around us (physicist Douglas Giancoli)? REPLY: No. Scientists see the Order (if they are actual scientists), which they do not "create". Although some of them are fairly "creative" (meaning either practical or productive) in inventing instruments to better SEE and UNDERSTAND the created ORDER. Incidentally, your cited author isn't a physicist! He is a writer of popular Physics text books, with a heavy emphasis on Algebra. So he is probably more of a mathematician than a physicist. True! There is nothing wrong with text book writers, nor with mathematicians. But mathematicians are notoriously "IDEALISTIC" and just as notoriously "IMPRACTICAL", very much like Uncle Bertie Russell and his thesis of "No answers are, as a rule, known to be true in philosophy!" Giancoli writes textbooks for a living. Physicists do Physics. Writing undergraduate textbooks is not a bad way to make a living. And the text books may be very good for all I don't know about his textbooks. But writing textbooks on Physics is not the same thing as doing Physics. So your description of "PHYSICIST" is a bit "off the mark". And even when physicists write textbooks, they always stray into some area of PHILOSOPHY --- things, thought or words --- although they do like their equations. They (whether actual Physicists, actual mathematicians or textbook writers) are little different from what Aristotle described them to be about 24 centuries ago --- people who cut off little parts of being and examine those parts in themselves or in relation to similar PARTS of being, whether they are mathematical or physical PARTS of being. Your alleged "physicist", who is an actual text book writer, seems to be mathematically inclined. And mathematicians have been trying to turn both being and logic into mathematical notation or numbers since the time of Pythagoras --- unsuccessfully I might add as well. Here is what some other sites had to say about your alleged "PHYSICIST", quote A PHYSICS TEACHER'S SITE IN AUSTRALIA: Tuesday 12 December - 5:30pm to 6:15pm Meet PROFESSOR Douglas C Giancoli, author of Physics for Scientists and Engineers and Physics: Principles & Applications at the Pearson Education Australia wine and cheese evening on Tuesday at 5.30pm. This is Doug Giancoli's first visit to Australia. He is interested to hear about teaching trends in university physics in Australia and to meet physics ACADEMICS. This is a rare opportunity to meet a world-renowned PHYSICS TEXTBOOK author. Pearson Education Australia is the world's leading publisher of educational products for the ACADEMIC MARKET. Previously known as Prentice Hall and Addison Wesley Longman, our PRODUCTS help teachers teach and people learn. From textbooks and teacher guides to computer based and on-line programs, we help people realise the power of education. ANOTHER "SELLING" SITE: Physics for Scientists and Engineers With Modern Physics 4th Ed + Masteringphysics (Hardcover) Save: $8.80 (4%) Compare at: $176.00 One hundred and 76 dollars for one book!!! No wonder Giancoli wants to talk to Physics ACADEMICS, in Australia at wine and cheeze parties --- More sales for a guy who has apparently written the same book at least 4 times!!! eg. 4rth Edition above. It's a "living", I guess, but I wouldn't call him a "Physicist", although he may be very knowledgable about past physicists, their work and their contributions to Physics. IVO: OR Does science require abstention from and relentless critique of prejudice? ANSWER: "Science" is not a person Ivo. You have listened to Kantian crap for so long that you can't tell the difference between "scientists" and their "sciences". There is no "science" out there independent of knowing scientists. And everybody, including scientists and textbook writers, has PREJUDICES, which is simply a negative name for PREJUDGMENTS or what Aristotle called OPINIONS, of which "nobody" is very clearly "aware". That is why such opinions or prejudgments are called PREJUDICES. But it doesn't matter what one's PREJUDICES are, for you can't cure smallpox with a prejudice or an opinion, nor can anyone conform the physical world to either their prejudices or their "ideas", since they didn't "create" the physical world and the physical world doesn't give a "fig" about either people's thoughts or their prejudices. Neither does the Smallpox virus, nor a syphilis organism, nor degenerating nerve fibres in our brains. How come everytime you post, you seem to forget your own previous theses such as "adequatio intellectus with res" to use an atrocious English-Latin combo, meaning "the equation of thought with thing", although Aquinas later preferred "conformity of intellect with thing", upon understanding Aristotle a bit better as he matured. More to follow... KB |
|
Kevin
Oct 25th, 2007 - 2:28 AM |
Re: definition of science
IVO: Is science a creative process which creates order in our observations of the world around us (physicist Douglas Giancoli)? SHORT ANSWER (previously answered) No. Science/knowledge is conformity of some intellects with some thing/s. In Aquinas's translated parlance, "SCIENCES are diversified by the diverse NATURES of knowable objects." OR IVO: Does science require abstention from and relentless critique of prejudice? SHORT ANSWER (previously answered): Yes and No (in different respects): The scientific method weeds out prejudiced practitioners. Prejudiced "scientists" become "jokes" or "has beens" and a new breed of actual scientists make the "prejudiced" into "obsolete-has-beens" proven wrong by ACTUAL BEING and knowledge/SCIENCE thereof. But it is THE METHOD, less than the persons, which does the "weeding out" of prejudiced "scientists" in so-called SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITIES. This "weeding out" process repeats the old "Socratic" story and exemplary paradigm. Some experts in one subject seem to think that their expertise in that one subject makes them "experts" in all subjects. Thus great scientists in one discipline have often been proved wrong when they try to apply their specialized expertise to another discipline. Descartes is a classic example --- A great analytical geometer, but a "louzy" physicist and "metaphysician", except where GEOMETRY applied to vision, in the physical realm. His theory of vision, was "close", because vision involves the application of geometrical principles to Physics and physical beings who see images. IVO: And does the diligent observation and intelligent combination of experience and hypotheses concerning “the design” underlying the whole natural order therefore require humility that the truth is out there to be found? ANSWER: You seem to have been watching too many episodes of the "X-FILES" and not listening carefully enough to either Aquinas or Aristotle. That the truth is "out there" comes straight from the "X-Files". Aristotle and Aquinas say that BEING, primarily SUBSTANCE/s, is/are "out there" whereas truth is, primarily, in the minds of SCIENTISTS who know about being and the attributes of being --- although Aristotle's name for SCIENTIST was any or all of, mathematician, theologian or "philosopher-of-nature" (Physicist). Scientists are not "humble" people, because they actually know things, although truly humble scientists are humbled by what they know that they do not know --- very much like Socrates. IVO: Does this second view exclude experiments? ANSWER: No! You can test an hypothesis with either an experiment or an observation --- either which may or may not contradict or confirm a repetitively verified HYPOTHESIS which becomes known as a THEORY upon repetitive verifications, involving (1) predictive and/or (2)explanatory POWER/s --- ie. the 2 ancient and modern "criteria" for good or successful theories. IVO: Does Giancoli’s quoted definition in the 2007 edition of his book “Physics” of science entail that science does not relate directly to nature, but only to our observations of it? ANSWER: Probably, although I haven't read his book or his "definition" of science. But taking your interpretations of any writer on any subject is a dubious operation at the very best, since you have a very short attention span and limited interpretive skills, at best. INCIDENTALLY, there is no such thing as "our observations" when radio telescopes, mass spectrometers, spectrophotometers, and all kinds of SPECIALIZED non-human equipment/machines are the metaphorical OBSERVERS and recorders of data which no human "observes". Human scientists actually observe EFFECTS upon SPECIALIZED "sensors" of phenomena and interpret those specialized EFFECTS. So "our observations" is non-sense, because very few people have access to the data obtained from billion-dollar cyclotrons or very large array radio telescopes. Heck! Most people couldn't correctly interpret basic "x-ray" negative photographs. Science means KNOWLEDGE and not "creative" or "artistic" interpretation. People who write books like to be thought of as "artistic". Sounds like your author who is no actual PHYSICIST. Where do you find these PROFESSORS, Ivo, instead of actually reading Aristotle for free?!!! You can get all of his stuff on the web for nothing. But your PHYSICIST apparently costs about 1.6 hundred dollars to read about being "creative". As I said, short attention span. Kevin |
|
Ivo
Oct 26th, 2007 - 10:25 PM |
Re: definition of science
“Adaequatio rei et intellectus” is Thomas’ definition of TRUTH (“veritas)” not of “science”. “Ens et verum convertuntur”, Being and the true can be converted, says Thomas in article 1 of the first disputed question of “On Truth”. Science is a journey of towards the discovery of Truth/being. Science is not truth/being as we cannot yet solve vexed issue of quantum gravity. Or have Aristotle and Thomas something to say about this issue? Do they know how to reconcile Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle with Newton’s law? Newton’s law would suggest that a single electron, fired through the double slit, will travel directly forward in a straight line and strike the screen. Under Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle, it is not possible to specify in advance where on the screen an individual electron will hit. All we can do is speak of the probability that the electron may end up in a number of different places The uncertainty principle tells us that IF we insist on thinking of the electron as a particle, THEN there are certain limitations on this simplified view, namely, that the POSITION and VELOCITY cannot both be known precisely at the same time and even that the electron does not have a precise position and momentum at the same time BECAUSE it is not simply a particle. The essence of Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle is that the act of observing produces an uncertainty in both the POSITION and the MOMENTUM of the electron. The uncertainty principle does not forbid individual precise measurement however. |
|
Ivo
Nov 4th, 2007 - 5:21 PM |
Re: definition of science
The question was whether science is a creative process which creates order in our observations of the world around us (Douglas Giancoli, “Physics”, Pearson Education Int’l, 2007, 6th ed., p. 1.)? OR whether science requires abstention from and relentless critique of prejudice? The next question has become: What do Aristotle and Thomas have to say about the vexed issue of quantum gravity, Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle being incompatible with Newton’s law? How are we going to discover the TRUTH about quantum gravity? In Book I of his Physics, Aristotle discusses what he calls the “principles” of natural objects and this soon becomes an analysis of the Principles of Change, not only natural change but all change whatever. (David Bostock, Introduction to Oxford UP translation by Robin Waterfield of the “Physics”). Aristotle wants to understand the phenomenal flux. He’s looking for the intelligibility of the phenomenal FLUX.(Augustin Mansion, “Introduction a la Physique aristotelicienne”, Louvain-la-Neuve, Editions de l’Institut Superieur de Philosophie, 1987, 2nd ed., 2nd anastatic reprinting, pp. 334-335) (Ivo’s irrelevant observation: the efficient cause is that cause which has a real IN-FLUX on another reality, Van Steenberghen and de Guibert, “Philosophie fondamentale”, 1989, p. 362) Mansion writes that Aristotle has been criticised for not wanting to reduce physical phenomena to displacements of atoms and for not having applied mathematics to physical objects, thereby hampering the development of science for more than 1000 years. For Aristotle, an application of mathematics to physical phenomena could however only reveal the quantitative aspect of the problem but could not give a philosophical explanation reaching to the bottom of things. (Augustin Mansion, op. cit. , p. 338) Quantum mechanics concerns what happens inside the atom. Democritus used the word “atom” “indivisible” for the indivisible particle. (Tillery, Enger and Ross, “integrated Science”, McGraw Hill, 2004 Int’l ed. p. 152) It’s only since last century that we know that inside that particle, there are neutrons, protons (positively charged) and electrons (negatively charged). The electron is not a particle but a wave. Indeed, we have the uncertainty principle because an electron and matter in general have WAVE as well as PARTICLE properties. (Giancoli, op. cit., p. 791) Tillery, Enger and Ross write on p. 152 that neither Plato nor Aristotle accepted the atomic theory of matter. Mansion writes p. 338 that Plato in his physics owes a lot to atomism and pythagorian mathematism, but that Aristotle is clearly opposed to it. All matter is constituted of atoms, thus of electrons. For Aristotle, there is, if one makes abstraction of free will, determinism in the natural world. Since then we know that the atom is not indivisible and that free will is an illusion. Even our own physical actions are entirely subject to ... mathematical control, where ‘control’ might still allow for some random behaviour governed by strict probabilistic principles” (Roger Penrose, The Road to Reality: “A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe”, London, Jonathan Cape, 2004, p. 19) Ivo Cerckel |
|
Ivo
Nov 4th, 2007 - 6:31 PM |
Re: definition of science
I said that for Aristotle, there is, if one makes abstraction of free will, determinism in the natural world. I found that on p. 315 of Mansion’s quoted book. |
|
Kevin
Nov 13th, 2007 - 2:39 AM |
Re: definition of science
Re: definition of science “Adaequatio rei et intellectus” is Thomas’ definition of TRUTH (“veritas)” not of “science”. REPLY: No! "Adequatio rei et intellectus", was several persons' definition of truth; notably Isaac Isreali's definition of truth in the middle ages; up until Aquinas received the full Aristotelian corpus translated directly into medieval Latin by William of Moerboeke. Then St. Thomas took "the contrary" to that definition by saying in Summa I, Q. 17, Article 2., quote: AQUINAS: ON THE CONTRARY (to 2 objections to the question WHETHER TRUTH RESIDES ONLY IN THE INTELLECT COMPOSING AND DIVIDING? --- one objection using Isaac Ben Israel's definition of truth to suggest "No!" as the answer to Aquinas's question), the philosopher says that with regard to simple things and WHAT a thing is, TRUTH is NOT found in either the intellect or in THINGS (Metaphysics 1027b line 27 and forward "noted"). I (Aquinas) ANSWER THAT: As was stated before, truth resides in its primary aspect, in the intellect. Now since everything is TRUE according as it has the FORM proper to its NATURE, the intellect, in so far as it is KNOWING, must be TRUE according as it has the LIKENESS of the thing KNOWN, which is its FORM as a KNOWING (ie. "Scientific" in English) power. For this reason TRUTH is DEFINED by the CONFORMITY of intellect and THING; and hence to KNOW TRUTH. ISOLATE (Aquinas): TRUTH is DEFINED by the CONFORMITY of intellect and THING; and hence to KNOW (ie. have SCIENCE of KB) TRUTH. AQUINAS (continues): But in no way does SENSE know this. For although SIGHT has the LIKENESS of a VISIBLE THING, yet it does NOT KNOW the comparison which exists between the THING SEEN and that which it, itself, is apprehending concerning it. [NOTE: Same thing with modern scientists' instruments and "data", which (instruments) apprehend "data" and are affected by causes of "data", but do not KNOW anything. KB] But the intellect can KNOW its own CONFORMITY, with the INTELLIGIBLE THING, yet it does NOT apprehend it by knowing WHAT A THING IS (ie by having a DEFINITION of a thing KB). When, however, it JUDGES that a THING corresponds to the FORM which it apprehends about that THING, then it first KNOWS and EXPRESSES the TRUTH. This it does by COMPOSING and DIVIDING; for in EVERY PROPOSITION it either applies to or removes from, the THING signified by the SUBJECT some FORM signified by the PREDICATE. This clearly shows that the sense is true in regard to a given thing, as is also the intellect in KNOWING what a THING IS; but it does not, thereby, KNOW or affirm TRUTH. This is, in like manner, the case with PROPOSITIONS or TERMS. [People may KNOW both propositions and terms. That doesn't mean that they know whether or not the propositions or terms are TRUE or CORRECT, when applied to THINGS or BEING. KB] TRUTH, therefore, may be in the sense or in the intellect KNOWING WHAT A THINGS IS, as in something that is as in something that is true; yet NOT as the thing KNOWN is in the KNOWER, which is implied by the word TRUTH; for the perfection of the intellect is TRUTH as KNOWN. Therefore, properly speaking, TRUTH resides in the INTELLECT composing and dividing; and NOT in the sense nor in the intellect KNOWING (having SCIENCE of) WHAT A THING IS. And thus the Objections given are solved. IVO: “Ens et verum convertuntur”, Being and the true can be converted, says Thomas in article 1 of the first disputed question of "On Truth". REPLY: Emphasis "disputed question". Aquinas thoroughly resolved the disputes in his Summa --- which you do not understand Ivo. You apparently also repetitively refuse to read Aquinas on either TRUTH or FALSITY in the Summa, in English, although it is available on the web for free at NEW ADVENT --- you might understand Aquinas better in whatever your mother tongue actually is --- [French?, German?; Flemish? and/or Walloon?] IVO: Science is a journey of towards the discovery of Truth/being. REPLY: You confuse a method with WHAT that method enables an actual SCIENTIST to discover or to learn! Aristotle said that SCIENCE is not only "KNOWING FACTS", which are always TRUE, but simultaneously KNOWING the CAUSES of the facts that one KNOWS. He also said that SCIENCE will continue "ad infinitum" since there are an INFINITE (in the sense of immeasureable; or NOT measureable) number of THINGS to be learned or discovered and, hence, KNOWN. IVO: Science is not truth/being as we cannot yet solve vexed issue of quantum gravity. WRONG AGAIN! Refuted in next post Kevin |
|
Kevin
Nov 13th, 2007 - 3:01 AM |
Re: definition of science
IVO (requote): IVO: Science is NOT truth/being as we cannot yet solve vexed issue of quantum gravity. REPLY: "We" are not going to solve anything, the way you "debate". You confuse the composite term "quantum gravity" with what mathematical physicists are trying to obtain --- a GUT or grand unified theory of electromagnetism, quantum mechanics and gravity. In short, mathematical physicists would like to find a quantum mechanical theory to explain GRAVITY, or, in other words a "quantum THEORY of GRAVITY", which is NOT something called "quantum gravity" There is no such thing as either "quantum gravity" or even a QUANTUM THEORY to predict and/or explain gravity at present. However, if modern mathematical physicists ever FORMULATED such a sought-for THEORY, it would both "explain" WHY gravity is always attractive over long "non-quantum" distances and make testable "predictions" possible. The other actual "quantum" forces are BOTH (1) far more powerful than the "weak and long distance" FORCE of gravity, as well as (2) both repulsive and attractive. IN SUM: There is no intelligible QUANTUM THEORY OF GRAVITY at present. Thus some materialists are "vexed" that Newton's theory is the "best" they have at present to DESCRIBE (but not explain) the weak force of gravity over long distances. In short, theoretical physicists cannot explain gravity using a "quantum" model of --- "gravitons" being exchanged between masses "instantaneously" over long distances, at, arguably "GREATER THAN LIGHT" speeds. Not surprizing. Try again. IVO: Or have Aristotle and Thomas something to say about this issue? REPLY: Yes. Scientists will keep contradicting each other, until someone finds a theory which may or may not resolve the contradictions caused by confusing ATTRIBUTES with THINGS. IVO: Do they know how to reconcile Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle with Newton’s law? REPLY: Certainly! If you try to measure the speed and momentum of St. Thomas Aquinas, riding his donkey, or Aristotle riding his student's (Alexander's) horse, Bucephalus, by exploding a nuclear weapon in their respective saddle bags, you will be UNCERTAIN as to WHAT their speeds and momenta BECAME after the respective A BOMBS exploded. I guess. However, since protons, neutrons and electrons were actually FORGED inside NATURAL HYDROGEN BOMBS (ie. STARS), they are, by NATURE, capable of maintaining their natural being in, shall I say, somewhat harsher circumstances or conditions than any of Aquinas, Aristotle, donkeys or horses. In short, never seek the nature of a glass vase, with either a sledge hammer or by throwing said vase against the nearest wall at speeds even minutely approaching light speed. You won't have a VASE (nor an Aquinas or an Aristotle) with such harsh "measuring" techniques! By analogy, even though one does not destroy electrons with such measuring techniques, you still can't tell where an electron is by increasing its energy and, hence, its momentum. IVO: Newton’s law would suggest that a single electron, fired through the double slit, will travel directly forward in a straight line and strike the screen. REPLY: But Newton wouldn't "suggest" that, were he alive today, because he would SEE a diffraction pattern. You "suggest" that a single electron can go through a double slit!!! Newton had the same problem in trying to understand the effects of PRISMS, since he had a CORPUSCULAR (quantum) THEORY of light and NOT a wave theory. But nobody can "fire a single electron" from any device anywhere! Modern scientists can and do "fire" streams or beams of millions of electrons at various targets. Newton's LAWS (actually Newton himself) also suggested that MASS can be neither created nor destroyed. But the charge to mass ratio of electrons CHANGES when they are accelerated to even small measured fractions of light speed. Thus QUANTUM mechanics, RELATIVITY and Newton's alleged "overthrow". Yet, ASTROPHYSICISTS still use both Newtonian Mechanics and a FIXED EARTH "hypothesis" to put orbiting satellites in space. I mean it --- a stationary EARTH, because the earth and launch vehicles are RELATIVELY STATIONARY ie. NOT MOVING in RELATION to each other at LAUNCH. So they don't have to bother with the FACT that a launch vehicle and the earth are ROTATING at about 800 to 1000 miles per hour about an axis. However it's a whole different bag of calculations when/if actual scientists intend to orbit some artificial satellite around the moon or send a vehicle to the moon. Then a FIXED EARTH "hypothesis" will send you 1000 miles per hour "off course" if your aim is at the moon, rather than at "round and about" the earth. Single electrons sent through double slits --- the sum over histories "hypothesis". But a wave can interact with a double slit. I wouldn't trust anyone except Steven Hawking to even try to explain Roger Penrose's dubious English! More nonsense to follow. KB |
|
Kevin
Nov 13th, 2007 - 3:22 AM |
Re: definition of science
IVO (continues): Under Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle, it is not possible to specify in advance where on the screen an individual electron will hit. All we can do is speak of the probability that the electron may end up in a number of different places. REPLY: You confuse millions of electrons with "individual electrons". And if what you say is true, then T.V. electrons from CRT's are unpredictable, which means you'll never know where individual electrons hit the the chromogens of T.V. screens. Is your CRT always wildly and unpredictably "fuzzy", Ivo? Cathode Rays are what we now call electrons, Ivo, and modern T.V. engineers make streams of electrons go to exactly where they WANT them to go. If they don't, then people ask for their money back for being sold DEFECTIVE TELEVISIONS --- their T.V.'s BEING unpredictably "blurry". All that Heisenberg said, quite reasonably, is that you CANNOT measure either the position or the momentum of an electron by MOVING it. DUH! He was a genius who could actually STATE SIMPLE FACTS simply!!! IVO: The uncertainty principle tells us that IF we insist on thinking of the electron as a particle, THEN there are certain limitations on this simplified view, namely, that the POSITION and VELOCITY cannot both be known precisely at the same time... REPLY: (You mean that Heisenberg "told you", Ivo, that you cannot know the position and velocity of an electron...) by CAUSING an electron to move faster. Duh... IVO: and even that the electron does not have a precise position and momentum at the same time BECAUSE it is not simply a particle. REPLY: An electron is a charged particle, too small to measure or indirectly "observe" without changing its motion, momentum and even its mass. IVO: The essence of Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle is that the act of observing produces an uncertainty in both the POSITION and the MOMENTUM of the electron. REPLY: You confuse "observation" with "measuring" or "manipulating". There is no such thing as "observing" particles which are too small to observe. However there are such things as CAUSE and EFFECT "relations". But, as Aristotle teaches, in order to understand CORRELATIVES you have to understand both of the correlative terms and both of the correlative THINGS signified by correlative terms, which are understood by means of the thought Category of RELATION. What you call the act of "observing", with respect to electrons, Aristotle would call "violence" done to electrons, by transforming them from relative "rest" to enforced "motion". It is axiomatic that you can't determine anything's POSITION by moving it! IVO: The uncertainty principle does not forbid individual precise measurement however. REPLY: On your interpretation, Ivo, of Herr Heisenberg's "uncertainty principle" that principle, as interpreted by you, "forbids" your television set or computer CRT from working properly because your CRT electron gun will scatter electrons indiscriminately and unpredictably all over the pixels of your screen. But that is not the case. It is simply that your mind runs unpredictably and indiscriminately all over the place, by "dropping names" without understanding what the names have said or what such "names" actually mean when they or their students write their thoughts down on pieces of paper or vellum. Nov 4th, 2007 - 5:21 PM Re: definition of science The question was whether science is a creative process which creates order in our observations of the world around us (Douglas Giancoli, “Physics”, Pearson Education Int’l, 2007, 6th ed., p. 1.)? OR whether science requires abstention from and relentless critique of prejudice? REPLY: Previously answered. IVO: The next question has become: What do Aristotle and Thomas have to say about the vexed issue of quantum gravity, Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle being incompatible with Newton’s law? REPLY: Aristotle and Aquinas have nothing to say about either Heisenberg or Newton, or about QUANTUM GRAVITY, because there is no such thing as "quantum gravity". There isn't even a workable QUANTUM THEORY of gravity, since gravity isn't explainable either in theory or practice with a quantum mechanical "model". For earth-gravity and our slow moving solar system, Newton's QUANTA suffice for both predictive and explanatory purposes. But Newton's QUANTA (quantities) don't work at relativistic (to light) speeds or under quantum conditions and distances. And Newton had 3 LAWS of motion, momentum and gravity, which still work fine, except at vast relativistic speeds and miniscule quantum distances, where Newton "breaks down" and elctromagnetic attractive and repulsive FORCES become DOMINANT. Newton's "breakdown" is good, because on Newton's Theory and even Electromagnetic "theory" those little electrons OUGHT TO collapse into atomic nuclei. Thus everything, even atoms, would be a black hole --- dense, unobservable, MASS. KB |
|
Kevin
Nov 13th, 2007 - 3:32 AM |
Re: definition of science
PREVIOU8LY, requote KEVIN: Newton's "breakdown" is good, because on Newton's Theory and even Electromagnetic "theory" those little electrons OUGHT TO collapse into atomic nuclei. Thus everything, even atoms, would be a black hole --- dense, unobservable, MASS. Roger Penrose "explains" the fact that electrons do not collapse into atomic nuclei with the wonderfully mathematical thesis, according to S. Hawking, that:- PENROSE: God abhors a naked singularity!!! (My exclamation marks. Hawking's quote. Great "mathematics" --- er would you believe tongue-in-cheek "theology"?). IVO: How are we going to discover the TRUTH about quantum gravity? REPLY: There is no such thing as "quantum gravity"! There isn't even such a thing as a QUANTUM THEORY OF GRAVITY. IVO: In Book I of his Physics, Aristotle discusses what he calls the "principles" of natural objects and this soon becomes an analysis of the Principles of Change, not only natural change but all change whatever. (David Bostock, Introduction to Oxford UP translation by Robin Waterfield of the “Physics”). REBUTTAL: That is David Bostock's interpretation of Aristotle. Aristotle actually says that, quote: ARISTOTLE: When the OBJECTS of any inquiry, in any DEPARTMENT, have principles, conditions, or elements, it is through acquaintance with these (principles; conditions; or elements KB) that KNOWLEDGE, that is to say SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE, is attained. For we do not think 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 (Physics KB), as in other BRANCHES of STUDY, our first task will be to try to determine what RELATES to its PRINCIPLES. IVO: Aristotle wants to understand the phenomenal flux. REPLY: Nonsense. He merely refutes both the Heraclitian "flux" and Parmenidian "motionless one" at the beginning of The Physics. IVO: He’s looking for the intelligibility of the phenomenal FLUX.(Augustin Mansion, “Introduction a la Physique aristotelicienne”, Louvain-la-Neuve, Editions de l’Institut Superieur de Philosophie, 1987, 2nd ed., 2nd anastatic reprinting, pp. 334-335) (Ivo’s irrelevant observation: the efficient cause is that cause which has a real IN-FLUX on another reality, Van Steenberghen and de Guibert, “Philosophie fondamentale”, 1989, p. 362) REPLY: Nonsense. The Heraclitian phenomenal flux is, BY DEFINITION, too evasively-changing to be intelligible or understandable because it is ever "flowing away" and "changing" from one contrary to its opposite. IVO: Mansion writes that Aristotle has been criticised for not wanting to reduce physical phenomena to displacements of atoms and for not having applied mathematics to physical objects, thereby hampering the development of science for more than 1000 years. REPLY: European "nut cases" who misinterpret Aristotle have set METAPHYSICS back over 2000 years to the illogical "fluxes" of Heraclitus and the equally irrelevant "motionlessness" of NUMBERS which do not move, when abstracted from mobile matter. IVO: For Aristotle, an application of mathematics to physical phenomena could however only reveal the quantitative aspect of the problem but could not give a "philosophical explanation" reaching to the bottom of things. (Augustin Mansion, op. cit. , p. 338) REPLY: You confuse someone named MANSION with Aristotle. Abstract mathematics was one of the 3 truly "philosophical sciences" for/to Aristotle. As usual, Ivo, try reading what Aristotle actually said sometime, instead of what your goofy European "interpreters" say of Aristotle. IVO: Quantum mechanics concerns what happens inside the atom. Democritus used the word “atom” “indivisible” for the indivisible particle. (Tillery, Enger and Ross, “integrated Science”, McGraw Hill, 2004 Int’l ed. p. 152) REPLY: But since atoms are divisible, Democritus was wrong and Aristotle was right in saying that any material thing is infinitely divisible in theory, even if not infinitely divisible in practice. He thought that because he believed in infinitely small and entirely immeasureable quantities solely on the basis of insights gleaned from GEOMETRY, such as the incommensurabiltiy of the diagonals of squares with their sides. In other words he knew about the IRRATIONALITY of the square root of the number 2, using the Pythagorean Theorem: "H-squared = a-squared plus b-squared." Explanation, next post. Kevin |
|
Kevin
Nov 13th, 2007 - 3:45 AM |
Re: definition of science
Suppose a square. Any square has equal sides of equal lengths. Suppose, then, each side is 1 unit. The length of the hypotenuse, then, using Pythagoras's theorem is equal to the square root of 2 units (sum of the squares of each 1 unit side). That hypotenuse, being incommensurable with either "side" is both an indeterminate and indeterminable length --- a.k.a. irrational number. Same thing with the ratio of the perimetron (circumference) of any circle to the diameter of that same circle --- indeterminate. In other words there is no measureable UNIT by which we can DETERMINE the ratio of the perimeter to the diameter of any circle. That thesis "cashes out" in an infinitely and unrepeating decimal pattern for "PI". IVO: It’s only since last century that we know that inside that particle, there are neutrons, protons (positively charged) and electrons (negatively charged). The electron is not a particle but a wave. REPLY: So electrons are waves "inside" particles!!! IVO: Indeed, we have the uncertainty principle because an electron and matter in general have WAVE as well as PARTICLE properties. (Giancoli, op. cit., p. 791) REPLY: No! We have an uncertainty principle because you can't measure either the position or motion of anything by CAUSING IT TO MOVE. We have equations which explain and predict electrons to be waves, but not particles. We have equations which explain and predict electrons to be particles, but not waves. Same thing with light:- Light can be explained as photons (particles) or waves (spectra). The equations have both descriptive and predictive merits. But scientists have not INTEGRATED the partial hypotheses and theories, because a wave is NOT a particle and a particle is NOT a wave. As I have said before, some theoreticians are confusing attributes with things and effects with causes. Heck! They don't even have a theory which explains "step up" and "step down" transformers; but we do have such transformers. "We" are, once again, at the stage of civilized men who could make great vintage wines and excellent Samurai swords, without having an intelligible THEORY of either metallurgy or fermentation to "explain" the causes of such things (fine wine; or good steel swords). IVO: Tillery, Enger and Ross write on p. 152 that neither Plato nor Aristotle accepted the atomic theory of matter. Mansion writes p. 338 that Plato in his physics owes a lot to atomism and pythagorian mathematism, but that Aristotle is clearly opposed to it. REPLY: Mansion sounds like another, YAWN, "neoplatonist" who seems to think that Plato knew things which he and Socrates denied knowing and that Aristotle said or believed things that he did not say or did not believe! Aristotle was opposed to Democritus's theory because he rightly thought that there are no such things as "UNCUTTABLES" (atoms) made out of matter --- on purely Pythagorean Geometrical "grounds". If anything is material it is divisible right down to a Euclidean point --- in other words INFINITELY DIVISIBLE --- in theory, but not practically. The so-called ATOM (uncuttable) has been proved entirely cuttable (fissionable) since Madame Curie (on a natural basis; spontaneous fission in pitchblende) and then, artificially, since the "nuclear age" and atomic fission experiments. Aristotle was correct. IVO: All matter is constituted of atoms, thus of electrons. REPLY: Baloney! Hydrogen protons have no electrons and they ARE matter. Same thing with neutrons and quarks --- no electrons but matter. You surely read "GREAT SCIENTISTS" other than Aristotle or any other real scientist --- text book writers and sophists are your specialty Ivo. More rebuttals to follow. KB |
|
Kevin
Nov 13th, 2007 - 4:16 AM |
Re: definition of science
IVO: For Aristotle, there is, if one makes abstraction of free will, determinism in the natural world. REBUTTAL: There isn't even "determinism" in mathematics for Aristotle, because the DIAGONAL is INCOMMENSURATE with the SIDE of a Pythagorean square! You are so entirely and gullibly NAIVE, Ivo. You are well-named. ARISTOTLE: For all men begin, as we said, by wondering that things are as they are, as they do about self-moving-marionettes (puppets KB), or about the solstices (Why does the sun move to the South in the winter and back to the North in the summer? KB) or the INCOMMENSURABILITY OF THE DIAGONAL OF A SQUARE WITH THE SIDE; for it seems WONDERFUL to ALL, who have not yet SEEN THE REASON, that there is a THING (ie. The diagonal of an obvious square KB) which CANNOT BE MEASURED even by the SMALLEST UNIT--- [NOTE: which is another name for INDETERMINATE and INDETERMINABLE "measurement"; as opposed its contrary which is "DETERMINISM"; in INDETERMINISTIC Pythagorean Geometry, Ivo!!! KB] --- ARISTOTLE (contd): But we must end in the CONTRARY and, according to the proverb, the BETTER STATE; for there is nothing which would surprize a GEOMETER so much as if the DIAGONAL turned out to be COMMENSURABLE (determinately-measureable KB) -----METAPHYSICS; BK I, Ch 2. 983a lines 14 to 21------- IVO: Since then we know that the atom is not indivisible [in other words the indivisible/atom is divisible, thereby agreeing with Aristotle and refuting Democritus KB] and that free will is an illusion. REBUTTAL: "We" don't KNOW that free will is an ILLUSION, Ivo. Free will is the ability to choose between alternatives, where there is an actual choice between alternatives. You are a perfect example of FREE WILL in thought if not in action. When you were looking for sympathy, you drove into an oncoming car BECAUSE you had just discovered that thalidomide had been ingested by your mother during her pregnancy and your parents didn't tell you about that mistake. Ergo your missing limb and uncomfortable prosthesis. However, when I criticized you for attempting to commit suicide by "driving into" an oncoming vehicle because of your emotional "fit" of IRRATIONAL-INCONTINENCE, then you changed your story, by means of the WONDER of "free will", into an oncoming drunk driver who ran into your car BECAUSE a European Court "found" him to be drunk at the time you INTENTIONALLY drove your car into his car! Which is it Ivo? You drove into him BECAUSE you were trying to commit suicide OR he drove into you BECAUSE he was drunk? It can't be both, although it could be TRUE that he was DRUNK and equally TRUE that you "lucked out" by intentionally driving into a car that you did not know contained a drunk driver, who was, arguably, too inebriated to avoid a collision with an IRRATIONAL driver who survived to become an irrational arguer. IVO: Even our own physical actions are entirely subject to ... mathematical control, where ‘control’ might still allow for some random behaviour governed by strict probabilistic principles” (Roger Penrose, The Road to Reality: “A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe”, London, Jonathan Cape, 2004, p. 19) Even Roger Penrose couldn't explain how you drove into a drunk driver BECAUSE you wanted to commit suicide but, on the other hand, the drunk driver drove into you BECAUSE he was drunk. Even a mathematician wouldn't believe that those 2 different equations actually "add up" to anything but a breach of the LAW OF THOUGHT, which you are entirely "free" to commit on non-mathematical grounds! But the probability that you were LYING with one of those 2 "adequations" is 100% COMMENT: Even Roger Penrose couldn't explain how you drove into a drunk driver BECAUSE you wanted to commit suicide but, on the other hand, the drunk driver drove into you BECAUSE he was drunk. Even a mathematician wouldn't believe that those 2 different equations actually "add up" to anything but a breach of the LAW OF THOUGHT, which you are entirely "free" to commit on non-mathematical grounds! But the probability that you were LYING with one of those 2 "adequations" is 100% REPLY: But, as we have heard from you Ivo, Roger Penrose is a great REALIST who prefers the fraction 3/8 to 3/8 of an entirely real pie. A true realist will take the real pie any day over the fraction BECAUSE he can eat a pie, or any fraction of a pie. But a realist can never eat the fraction "3/8". This is the same Penrose who thinks that numbers have "magical properties", isn't he? He sounds like a typical "Pythagorean" if there ever was one. But even a Pythagorean has no mathematical explanation as to HOW you drove into someone, being suicidal, but he drove into you, being drunk. The two "adequations" are mathematically and morally incommensurate and incommensurable --- but perfectly explainable on mental and moral "grounds" --- meaning irrational and immoral grounds. Still more... KB |
|
Kevin
Nov 13th, 2007 - 5:02 AM |
Re: definition of science
IVO (previously), REQUOTED: Even our own physical actions are entirely subject to ... mathematical control, where ‘control’ might still allow for some random behaviour governed by strict probabilistic principles” (Roger Penrose, The Road to Reality: “A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe”, London, Jonathan Cape, 2004, p. 19) ADDITIONAL REPLY: Thank God for Americans who write fictional FOREST GUMPS, rather than for Roger Penrose who writes mathematical improbabilities and pseudo-Science- fiction as "probably" explaining moral choices, such as to DRIVE DRUNK or to COMMIT SUICIDE; or NOT!!! There is a high mathematical probability that any given drunk driver will eventually crash into some other vehicle or thing. The probability will go up with the level of intoxication and with the frequency of driving under alcoholic, rather than mathematical, "influences". But, on the other hand, there is a 100% certainty that a SUICIDAL DRIVER, who intends to commit suicide by driving into something, will drive into something if he intends to do so --- which he did, according to his own actually TRUE propositions. The other "explanation" about the crash being a drunk driver's FAULT, according to a European "Court", is a pure and unadulterated legal/statistical fiction. Ivo subsequently said that he didn't remember. But it was far more probable that the drunk didn't remember. MORE ANALYSIS OF PENROSE: As we have heard from you Ivo, Roger Penrose is a great REALIST who prefers the fraction 3/8 to 3/8 of an entirely real pie. A true realist will take the real pie any day over the fraction BECAUSE he can eat a pie, or any fraction of a pie. But a realist can never eat the fraction "3/8". This is the same Penrose who thinks that numbers have "magical properties", isn't he? Once again, he sounds like a typical "Pythagorean" if there ever was one. To Penrose, NUMBERS are more real and "magical" than pies. He'd change his tune in a twinkling if he wasn't an American (?) with too much pie to eat and too much time to think about numbers abstracted from material composites. Take away his pie and other foodstuffs and he wouldn't be able to think about anything, coherently, in a month. He'd be having "mystical HALLUCINATIONS" (actualy "starvational" hallucinations) about numbers rather than either incoherent or cogent "thoughts" about the "magic" of numbers "controlling" human choices and actions. Nov 4th, 2007 - 6:31 PM Re: definition of science I said that for Aristotle, there is, if one makes abstraction of free will, determinism in the natural world. I found that on p. 315 of Mansion’s quoted book. CORRECTION: Mansion is NOT Aristotle, Ivo. So what Mansion HALLUCINATES is NOT what Aristotle cogently argued. Aristotle didn't even think that there was such a thing as DETERMINISM even in plane geometry BECAUSE the diagonal cannot be DETERMINITELY MEASURED "even by the smallest number"! Lots of people may read what Aristotle actually wrote, but they sure have a tough time UNDERSTANDING him, since they seem to be trying to fit Aristotle into a mold of European post-Kantian, post-Cartesian, pinheaded "misinterpretation". Aristotle was anything and everything EXCEPT a modern pin-headed "DETERMINIST". When Roger Penrose figues out the last decimal place of "PI", let alone a complete guide to the LAWS of the universe, he will have refuted Aristotle's radical FREEDOM in both mathematics and physics. Good luck to Roger on the "problem" of PI, let alone the universe or drunk drivers vs. suicidal drivers. I won't be holding my breath while Penrose DETERMINES "pi" because he can't --- another mathematician who "thinks" he can explain the universe while being unable to DETERMINE a simple Pythagorean RATIO or explain the difference between a particle, a wave, a suicide or a drunk. I love mathematicians. They are so colossally arrogant with numbers and equations [rightly so in some cases], but so obscurely unintelligible when "stuck" with explaining numbers, or anything else, by means of basic GRAMMAR. It must be "comforting" for you, Ivo, to think that mathematics "explains" your missing limb and/or that you drove into a drunk driver who actually drove into you, according to a European Court. However when a European "Court Bureaucrat" rules against Microsoft, she makes a bad decision, but when a European Court rules in favor of you, Ivo, the Court makes a good or "fortunate" decision!!! You really absorbed your legal training, Ivo. Casting so-called "reasonable doubts" on the truth is the only thing that lawyers KNOW how to do. Of course, PHILOSOPHERS describe lawyers as DIALECTICAL SOPHISTS who are not remotely interested in either TRUTH or SCIENCE, except to "justify" the immoral and/or illegal ACTS of their clients or "selves". Kevin |
|
Ivo
Nov 18th, 2007 - 4:55 PM |
Re: definition of science
1. What has been achieved in physics has sooner or later influences man’s whole life. (1) In philosophy, there is no agreed upon body of philosophical facts. Why is that?, asks Van Inwagen. (2) The question is itself a philosophical question, belonging to meta-philosophy. According to one point of view, this is a consequence of the nature of philosophy, philosophical questions are defective because they have no answer. According to another point of view, this is a consequence of the nature of the human mind, there is something about the human mind that unfits it for investigating philosophical questions, says Van Inwagen. According Roger Penrose, or at least according to the part of a book review on the jacket of his 2004 book “The Road to Reality”, we lack a fundamental insight into physics without which we will never be able to comprehend the mind. We thus lack a fundamental insight in physics to understand what at present unfits the human mind for investigating philosophical questions. 2. Penrose is being criticised by K. K does not give one reference to any modern physicist to support his critique of quantum gravity. K only quotes Aristotle once. Quantum gravity is the field of theoretical physics attempting to unify quantum mechanics, which describes three of the fundamental forces of nature, with general relativity, the theory of the fourth fundamental force: gravity. One ultimate goal hoped to emerge as a result of this is a unified framework for all fundamental forces—a "theory of everything", or "Grand Unified Theory" (GUT). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_gravity Neither does K give any reference to support his critique of Heisenberg. When I quote for example, without indicating the origin, p. 791 of Giancoli’s book: “The uncertainty principle tells us that IF we insist on thinking of the electron as a particle, THEN there are certain limitations on this simplified view, namely, that the POSITION and VELOCITY cannot both be known precisely at the same time”, K hallucinates that I mean that Heisenberg "told me”, Ivo, that I cannot know the position and velocity of an electron...) by CAUSING an electron to move faster. Duh, says K. No, I read that on p. 791 of Giancoli’s quoted book. I, Ivo, am no physicist, thus I look up what it is. K, on the other hand, knows everything about physics, but he carefully refrains from giving any support (from authorities in physics) to his allegations. K even attacks canon Augustin Mansion (1882-1966), who spent his life (the second reprinting of the second edition of his book was from 1987) studying Aristotle on the basis of the Greek text, for being a neo-platonist and hence for giving goofy interpretations and even for hallucinating about Aristotle. K wants to make sure that Ivo does not read Thomas in the Latin original because when Ivo then reads that adaequatio rei et intellectus is Thomas’ definition of veritas, it would not allow K to argue that it is the definition of scientia nor to argue (to what effect?), when K’s attention is drawn to the fact that it is the definition of veritas, that Thomas was not the first to use that definition, thereby solving the objections. (“And thus the Objections given are solved“, says K. Ivo: the objection was that the definition is of veritas not of scientia. K recognises that this objection was justified.) There are two kinds of argumenta ad hominem. If you cannot attack the argument, attack the arguer. While an insult is not fallacious, it is if made in a way calculated to undermine an opponent’s argument, and to encourage an audience to give it less weight than its merits. When this is done, the famous “argumentum ad hominem” ABUSIVE is committed (3) In the “argumentum ad hominem” CIRCUMSTANTIAL, the appeal is to the special circumstances of the person with whom one is arguing. Instead of trying to prove the contention true or false on the evidence, its acceptance is urged because of the position and interests of those appealed to. (4) If as K alleges, Thomas was not the first to use the definition veritas, not scientia, as adaequatio rei et intellectus, would it not have been appropriate to indicate who were the persons who used this definition before Thomas? To paraphrase K, which one is it? The abusive or the circumstantial? |
|
Kevin
Dec 6th, 2007 - 5:01 AM |
Re: Re: definition of science
IVO: In philosophy, there is no agreed upon body of philosophical facts. RETORT: "Philosophy" is CONTRADICTION! IVO: According to one point of view, this is a consequence of the nature of philosophy, philosophical questions are defective because they have no answer. RETORT: According to Bertrand Russell. IVO: According to another point of view, this is a consequence of the nature of the human mind, there is something about the human mind that unfits it for investigating philosophical questions, says Van Inwagen. RETORT: Van Imwagen's mind must be unfit. But all minds are not his mind. IVO: According Roger Penrose, or at least according to the part of a book review on the jacket of his 2004 book “The Road to Reality”, we lack a fundamental insight into physics without which we will never be able to comprehend the mind. REPLY: Ivo confuses a book review with a book author. IVO: We thus lack a fundamental insight in physics to understand what at present unfits the human mind for investigating philosophical questions. RETORT: According to Van Imwagen and a book reviewer. IVO: Penrose is being criticised by K. REPLY: Yes! For preferring fractions to fractions of pies. Pies are real. Fractions are abstractions from real things. IVO: K does not give one reference to any modern physicist to support his critique of quantum gravity. K only quotes Aristotle once. RETORT There is no such "thing" as "quantum gravity". IVO: Quantum gravity is the field of theoretical physics attempting to unify quantum mechanics, which describes three of the fundamental forces of nature, with general relativity, the theory of the fourth fundamental force: gravity. One ultimate goal hoped to emerge as a result of this is a unified framework for all fundamental forces—a "theory of everything", or "Grand Unified Theory" (GUT). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_gravity WIKIPEDIA (referring to above "definition"): References This article does not cite any references or sources. (July 2007) Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed. RETORT: The Wikipedia article cited no references!!! HAH!!! IVO: Neither does K give any reference to support his critique of Heisenberg. REBUTTAL: You are not Heisenberg. I was criticizing your misinterpretation of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, which had nothing to do with your non-existent "quantum gravity". Gravity is not a "quantum" phenomenon. IVO: When I quote for example, without indicating the origin, p. 791 of Giancoli’s book: “The uncertainty principle tells us..." RETORT: No! Giancoli the text book writer (?) "told us" and you repeated Giancoli, the text book writer. IVO: K hallucinates that I mean that Heisenberg "told me”, Ivo, that I cannot know the position and velocity of an electron... by CAUSING an electron to move faster. Duh, says K. REPLY: Right! Of course you can't know the position or the velocity of an electron by MOVING it (Duh!) A moving object doesn't have a position. And if you measure it's motion by applying energy to it, you change its momentum. The same thing holds with waves at the speed of light. If you are moving at half the speed of light and emit a detectable electromagnetic wave, it leaves you at the speed of light. A neutral observer, however, sees the light wave leaving you at light-speed minus 1/2 light-speed, which is the speed of your vehicle. Thus the neutral observer sees the light you emitted moving ahead of your vehicle at 1/2 light speed The total speed = light speed (1/2 vehicle-speed + 1/2 light-speed emitted from your vehicle) But you see the light moving away from your vehicle at the FULL SPEED OF LIGHT. Your clock has slowed down, compared to the neutral observer's clock! His clock has sped up relative to yours. RELATIVITY!!! Not "quantum gravity" non-sense. A "quantum THEORY of gravity" is still possible BECAUSE no one knows WHY mass attracts mass! IVO: No, I read that on p. 791 of Giancoli’s quoted book. I, Ivo, am no physicist, thus I look up what it is. REPLY: What you read and what I say are entirely different things. I argued. You ignored the argument. IVO: K, on the other hand, knows everything about physics, but he carefully refrains from giving any support (from authorities in physics) to his allegations. REPLY: I know a lot about Physics because I am a trained "physicist" or philosopher-of-nature as Aristotle describes us people --- like he and I, who are and were physicists. I don't know "everything" about physics because only God knows everything about physics --- having Created the physical realm. contd. |
|
Kevin
Dec 6th, 2007 - 6:11 AM |
Re: Re: definition of science
IVO: K even attacks canon Augustin Mansion (1882-1966), who spent his life (the second reprinting of the second edition of his book was from 1987) studying Aristotle on the basis of the Greek text, REPLY: Grammarian eh? Just because one can read Greek, it does not follow that one UNDERSTANDS Aristotle, nor that one understands either ancient or modern physics, since language is one thing and fully understanding a language-speaker is a differnt thing as will be EVIDENT very soon. I did not attack MANSION, but, rather his "argument", if I recall. IVO: (Kevin attacks Mansion) for being a neo-platonist and hence for giving goofy interpretations and even for hallucinating about Aristotle. REPLY: I said he sounds like a Neo-Platonist. But even a NeoPlatonist might have an intelligent "argument" to make on any given topic --- even science. eg. Augustine tended to "Platonism" in his arguments, but was still a very fine arguer. As to "hallucinating" I forget the context. Maybe I'll recheck it some time --- but since you never directly quote anything I write, in order to accurately CONTRADICT what I have said, there is little point to revisit Mansion at present. IVO: K wants to make sure that Ivo does not read Thomas in the Latin original because when Ivo then reads that adaequatio rei et intellectus is Thomas’ definition of veritas, it would not allow K to argue that it is the definition of scientia nor to argue (to what effect?), REPLY: "adaequatio rei et intellectus" OR "the equation of THING (rei) with THOUGHT (intellectus)" is Isaac Ben Israel's definitin of TRUTH. Aquinas's definition of truth is "conformity of intellect with thing" and NOT "equation" of thought with thing because EQUALITY is a peculiar attribute of numbers. Read Aquinas in any language you prefer, including LATIN. You still won't understand him or Aristotle, or even myself BECAUSE you argue poorly and LISTEN to what is written even more poorly, as you so clearly DEMONSTRATE below. IVO: when K’s attention is drawn to the fact that it is the definition of veritas, that Thomas was not the first to use that definition, thereby solving the objections. (“And thus the Objections given are solved“, says K. REBUTTAL: No! Aquinas SAID that!!! [And thus the objections given to the question (WHETHER TRUTH IS IN THE INTELLECT COMPOSING AND DIVIDING?) are solved" SAYS ST. THOMAS AQUINAS (whom I was quoting, as to his ACTUAL DEFINITION OF TRUTH). Once more, Ivo DIVIDES Aquinas from his own statements and miscomposes K. ("says K.") with Aquinas!!! IVO: Ivo: the objection was that the definition is of veritas not of scientia. K recognises that this objection was justified. REPLY: Nonsense. Read Aquinas's SUMMA "On Truth", in Latin or any other language. He gives you his actual definition of TRUTH exactly as I cited it "CONFORMITY OF INTELLECT WITH THING." If you want to hear Aquinas on Science, I'll give you two of his actual quotes AQUINAS (Whether besides the philosophical SCIENCES any further doctrine is required?): Obj. 2. Further, KNOWLEDGE ("scientium"; SCIENCE) can be concerned only with BEING, for nothing can be KNOWN, save the TRUE, which is CONVERTIBLE with BEING (true; KB). But everything that is, is considered in the philosophical sciences [Dubious KB. There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamed of in our philosophy. KB]--- even God Himself; so that there is a part of philosophy called theology or the divine science as is clear from Aristotle [Metaphysics 1026a line 19 ff]. Therefore besides the philosophical SCIENCES there is no need of any further KNOWLEDGE (scientium; science KB) --- Summa I, Q. 1. ARTICLE 1. AQUINAS!!! AQUINAS (again): Reply Obj. 2. SCIENCES are diversified according to the diverse NATURE of their KNOWABLE OBJECTS. For the ASTRONOMER and the PHYSICIST both prove the same conclusion --- that the earth for instance is round: the astronomer by means of mathematics (ie. abstracting from matter), but the physicist by means of matter itself. Hence there is no reason why those things which are treated by the philosophical SCIENCES, so far as they are KNOWN by the light of natural reason may not also be known by the light of divine revelation. Hence the theology included in sacred doctrine differs in GENUS (cause KB) from that theology which is part of philosophy. [AQUINAS] COMMENT: The 1st question and 1st article of Aquinas's SUMMA, which you have arguably never read, Ivo. Or if you have read it, you obviously don't understand it. IVO: There are two kinds of argumenta ad hominem. If you cannot attack the argument, attack the arguer. COMMENT: Which is ALL that you ever DO, while ALWAYS ignoring the actual arguments. Kevin attacked this; he attacked Mansion; He attacked Penrose --- when I only attack your arguments after you drop their names as AUTHORITIES --- the weakest sort of philosophical argument. contd. |
|
Kevin
Dec 6th, 2007 - 6:56 AM |
Re: Re: definition of science
IVO: In the “argumentum ad hominem” CIRCUMSTANTIAL, the appeal is to the special circumstances of the person with whom one is arguing. Instead of trying to prove the contention true or false on the evidence, its acceptance is urged because of the position and interests of those appealed to. COMMENT: Yes. Arguments such as "Every Scientist agrees on this point, so if you want to be a SCIENTIST, too, you must agree with them and with me." (while ignoring any actual argument.) IVO: If as K alleges, Thomas was not the first to use the definition veritas, not scientia, as adaequatio rei et intellectus, would it not have been appropriate to indicate who were the persons who used this definition before Thomas? REPLY: I never alleged that "Thomas was NOT the 1st to use the definition of veritas, not scientia, as adequatio rei et intellectus.". I said that St. Thomas's MATURE DEFINITION of TRUTH was "conformity of intellect with thing." --- NOT "adequatio". Secondly, ST. THOMAS HIMSELF, tells you who's definition of TRUTH is "adequatio rei et intellectus" in the same question I cited. The guy's name was ISAAC BEN ISRAEL from his medieval work ON DEFINITIONS!!! AQUINAS: Obj. 2. Further, ISAAC [cf. J.T. Muckle, "Isaac Israeli's Definition of Truth" (Archives d'hist doct. et litt. du Moyen Age, viii, 1933 pp. 5-8) cited by Antone Pegis as a footnote to this passage from the Summa KB] says in his Book ON DEFINITIONS that TRUTH is the EQUATION OF THOUGHT AND THING ("adequatio rei et intellectus" KB). Now just as the intellect which forms judgments can be equated to things, so also can the intellect that simply apprehends essences; and this is true likewise of sense apprehending a thing as it is. Therefore truth does NOT reside in the intellect composing and dividing. I ANSWER THAT ... For this reason TRUTH is defined by the CONFORMITY of INTELLECT and THING; and hence to KNOW TRUTH. (previously quoted) --- [AQUINAS; Summa I, Q. 16. Article 2.] IVO: To paraphrase K, which one is it? The abusive or the circumstantial. REPLY: In your case, Ivo, it would be neither. You seem to specialize in the "STRAW MAN" argument. You build up a FALSE PICTURE of either "the man" or "the argument" and then "straw man" either or both. Your replies are, thus, neither circumstantial nor abusive ad hominems, but more like "ad straw man" or "ad straw argument" abuses of "argumentation", mostly caused by failures to READ CAREFULLY and to actually QUOTE the arguments you "think" you get. But you don't get them, because you don't listen carefully to anything you read, which clearly shows up in your other posts on this topic of SCIENCE. The difference between a SCIENTIST who makes TRUE statements and someone who merely REGURGITATES true (or even false) statements, is that a SCIENTIST (or philosopher-of-nature to use Aristotle's description of a "scientist") not only knows the TRUE FACT, but also the CAUSE/s of that TRUE FACT stated as a proposition. contd. |
|
Ivo
Nov 18th, 2007 - 5:00 PM |
Re: definition of science
3. K says that that reality is infinitely divisible (Nov 13, 07 - 3:32 AM in this thread). Hence, says K, Democritus was wrong and Aristotle was right in saying that any material thing is infinitely divisible in theory, even if not infinitely divisible in practice The truth is that there must be ultimate elements of which reality is composed. K however opposes Democritus to Aristotle. Although Aristotle had a scientific spirit and believed that all knowledge comes from sense experience, he was not yet in the mould of a modern scientist. He was a careful observer but was imprecise in his observations. For example, he did not seem to know the importance of controlled experiments. As a result, he concluded common-sensical that heavy objects fall faster than light ones. He believed that superlunary objects were perfect and unblemished, but sublunary objects were imperfect and blemished, which would later prove wrong. He also held the view that the earth was the centre of the universe, based on common sense observation. (5) Jostein Gaarder compares the atoms of Democritus to Lego-blocks with which children are building/playing. He says that Democritus was the last of the great natural philosophers. (6) For Democritus, it was all-important to establish that the constituent parts that everything was composed of could not be divided indefinitely into smaller parts. If this were possible, they could not be used as blocks. If nature could eternally be broken down into ever-smaller parts, nature would begin to dissolve like constantly diluted soap. Lego-blocks have more or less the same properties as those which Democritus ascribed to atoms. And this is what makes them so much fun to build with. They are first and foremost indivisible. Then they have different shapes and sizes. They are solid and impermeable. They also have “hooks” and “barbs” so that they can be connected to form every conceivable figure. These connected can later be broken again so that new figures can be constructed from the same blocks. The fact that they can be used over and over again is what has made Lego so popular. We can form things by clay too, but clay cannot be used over and over because it can be broken up into smaller pieces. Gaarder continues by saying that today, we can establish that Democritus’ atom theory was more or less correct. In our time, however, scientists have discovered that atoms can be broken into smaller “elemental particles”, protons, neutrons and electrons. These will possibly some day be broken into even lesser particles. But physicists agree that somewhere along the line there has to be a limit. There has to be a ‘minimal part’ of which nature consists, concludes Gaarder. Reality can thus not be infinitely divisible. 4. Ivo, who does not speak English, originally thought that K had written that electrons, protons and neutrons have been ‘forCed’ inside the atom. K does not say that electrons, protons and neutrons have been ‘forCed’ inside the atom. He says in the message Nov 13th, 2007 - 3:01 AM that they have been ‘forGed’ inside the atom. “To forge” means according to Webster’s 1. to shape (metal) by heating and hammering 2. to fashion, esp. by concentrated effort, “to forge a treaty” 3. to imitate fraudulently; “someone forged this signature” If as K argues electrons, protons and neutrons had to be forged inside the atom, does this not indicate that the atom is NOT infinitely divisible? 5. I said: Science is not truth/being as we cannot yet solve vexed issue of quantum gravity. K says in Nov 13th, 2007 - 2:39 AM WRONG AGAIN! Refuted in next post The next post is Nov 13th, 2007 - 3:01 AM where K says IN SUM: There is no intelligible QUANTUM THEORY OF GRAVITY at present. That’s precisely what Ivo said. Which one is it, K? The circumstantial or the abusive? |
|
Kevin
Dec 6th, 2007 - 8:05 AM |
Re: Re: definition of science
IVO: 3. K says that that reality is infinitely divisible (Nov 13, 07 - 3:32 AM in this thread). KEVIN (Nov. 13, 07 - 3:32 AM in this thread). What I ACTUALLY WROTE, requoted: But since atoms are divisible, Democritus was wrong and Aristotle was right in saying that ANY MATERIAL THING IS INFINITELY DIVISIBLE in theory, even if not infinitely divisible in practice. ARGUMENT: Ivo "reads" ANY MATERIAL THING as "REALITY" above. Ivo must be some sort of "materialist" to "adequatio" ANY MATERIAL THING with "reality" and to stuff such "straw words" in my mouth without actually QUOTING what I wrote. Now he correctly quotes, but entirely misses the argument. Quote IVO: Hence, says K, Democritus was wrong and Aristotle was right in saying that any material thing is infinitely divisible in theory, even if not infinitely divisible in practice. REBUTTAL: No. The argument was that because Democritus thought that ATOMS were uncuttable, he has been proven wrong by both (1) Aristotle's theoretical argument, based on Geometry and Mathematics and by (2) modern nuclear Physics where atoms are SMASHED rather than "cut" with sharp instruments or Geometrically bisected "ad infinitum" in theory. ATOMOS means UNCUTTABLE in ancient Greek. IVO: The truth is that there must be ultimate elements of which reality is composed. REBUTTAL: The "Is-ought" fallacy of misreasoning. The truth IS that there OUGHT TO BE ultimate elements of which REALITY (confusing "reality" with "matter" or "materiality"). Even any crass "materialist" knows that neither LIGHT nor SPACE are "matter". IVO: K however opposes Democritus to Aristotle. REBUTTAL: Modern Physics OPPOSES Democritus's theory of UNCUTTABLE/Atomos particles, because modern physicists have CUT (actually "smashed") the so-called uncuttable (atomos) particles. IVO: Although Aristotle had a scientific spirit and believed that all knowledge comes from sense experience, he was not yet in the mould of a modern scientist. REBUTTAL: Baloney. If ALL KNOWLEDGE came from SENSE EXPERIENCE then pigs and dogs would be as knowledgable as human beings, since such animals have perfectly good sense experiences. And as I have previously argued into the "thin air" between Ivo's ears, many animals, other than men, have better sensory equipment than human animals. According to both Aristotle and Aquinas, THINGS are KNOWABLE in so far as they are separable from matter and material conditions. We KNOW THINGS because we can SEPARATE their FORMS from material conditions. IVO: He was a careful observer but was imprecise in his observations. REPLY: He was more precise than any naked eye observer is today. He simply did not have the modern scientific equipment with which to make more accurate and precise measurements. IVO: For example, he did not seem to know the importance of controlled experiments. REBUTTAL: "Controlled Experiments" involve both affirming and denying the EXISTENTIAL ANTECEDENTS of scientific hypotheses. A "controlled experiment" would be UNNATURAL or ARTIFICIAL and ILLOGICAL to Aristotle, although he would have understood the nature of controlled experiments MUCH BETTER than modern illogical so-called "logical positivists" who MISREASON in thinking that SCIENTISTS are misreasoning from CONSEQUENT to ANTECEDENT. No doubt that some HACK SCIENTISTS do such things --- ie. misreason from consequent to antecedent. But Aristotle and actual scientists KNEW/know that EFFICIENT CAUSES always precede their EFFECTS, which David Hume VOLUBLY "doubted" (being a sceptic), and all "logical positivists" are Hume's intellectual descendants. So they don't "get" that one can EXISTENTIALLY DO what it would be ILLOGICAL to do in HYPOTHETICAL REASONING --- ie. To DENY the antecedent of a hypothesis OR to AFFIRM the consequent of a hypothesis. However, by a "controlled experiment" one can EXISTENTIALLY both (1) AFFIRM (test) and (2) DENY (control) the ANTECEDENT part of an hypothesis --- thereby setting up a perfectly EXISTENTIAL set of "contradictory" SITUATIONS or CIRCUMSTANCES, as distinct from CONTRADICTORY PROPOSITIONS. Russell and "positivist" friends simply "talk" about affirmed consequents as lending "INDUCTIVE VALIDITY" or "INDUCTIVE CREDIBILITY" to scientific hypotheses and experimental procedures. But it is NOT the "affirmed consequent" (DEDUCTIVELY FALLACIOUS), but rather the EXISTENTIALLY-AFFIRMED and, simultaneously, EXISTENTIALLY-DENIED "existential antecedents" of scientific hypotheses which DRIVES progress in modern science, because as Aristotle TAUGHT and Hume DENIED the EFFICIENT CAUSE always precedes its EFFECT in time, and CAUSES that effect. You probably don't understand this argument either. contd. |
|
Kevin
Dec 6th, 2007 - 9:01 AM |
Re: Re: definition of science
IVO: For example, he did not seem to know the importance of controlled experiments. As a result, he concluded common-sensical that heavy objects fall faster than light ones. REBUTTAL: It wasn't because "he (Aristotle) did not seem to know the importance of controlled experiments" that he concluded that "heavy objects fall faster than light ones". He concluded that heavy objects fall faster than light ones, because air bubbles rise in water and stones fall in water. It was by observation that he came to that conclusion. He would have BELIEVED Galileo's experiments and observations --- it was only NeoPlatonists that wanted "dialogues" to be convinced. Galileo and Aristotle would have been BUDDIES, although Galileo seemed to have mistaken NeoPlatonist professors, citing Aristotle to SQUASH ARGUMENTS, with Aristotle himself (who preferred observation to Dialogues). And HEAVIER, actually MORE-MASSIVE, objects do "fall faster", since anything that accelerates at 32 feet per second, per second, on earth, "falls" a helluva lot slower on the moon and a helluva lot faster in Jupiter's Gravitational Field --- but Aristotle did not UNDERSTAND "gravity" to be the consequence of a RELATION between MASSIVE objects. The more massive the OBJECTS the stronger the RELATION. Nobody, least of all myself, ever said that Aristotle never made any mistakes except for dimwitted "authorities" who did not understand Aristotle, yet cited him to SQUELCH both investigation and argumentation. IVO: He believed that superlunary objects were perfect and unblemished, but sublunary objects were imperfect and blemished, which would later prove wrong. REBUTTAL: He believed superlunary objects were perfect because they moved predictably and their MOTION had not noticeably deviated during the entire recorded history of ancient Greece. No decay, nor change in motion, is a sign of perfection --- which means UNCHANGABILITY --- one definition of perfection. The "perfect" NEVER CHANGES to worse or better. You, Ivo, are simply REGURGITATING Aristotle's CRITICS without quoting Aristotle. IVO: He also held the view that the earth was the centre of the universe, based on common sense observation. REBUTTAL: He believed that the earth was the centre of the COSMOS based on EUDOXUS's THEORY of the revolving spheres and naked eye observation. Eudoxus's theory was ACCEPTED by "Everybody" in ancient Greece, at that time, for the same REASONS that any modern scientific theory is accepted, which were, THEN, as NOW, (1) Explanatory Power (ie. Eudoxus's Theory explained naked eye observations) and (2) Predictive Power (ie. Eudoxus and the Academic Mathematicians could accurately PREDICT ECLIPSES with the theory of Eudoxus. Eudoxus is/was NOT Aristotle). IVO: Jostein Gaarder compares the atoms of Democritus to Lego-blocks with which children are building/playing. He says that Democritus was the last of the great natural philosophers. (6) REPLY: Jostein Gaarder is full of horse feathers. Democritus was 0NE, among many, of the ancient Greek MATERIALIST-philosophers-of-nature (Physicists). The last of "the great natural philosophers" is the next great modern scientist. Aristotle was a better PHYSICIST (natural philosopher) than Democritus, because he wasn't a strict MATERIALIST. IVO: For Democritus, it was all-important to establish that... (yaddety)... COMMENT: Try actually quoting Democritus to prove what was and was not "all important" to him. IVO: Lego-blocks have more or less the same properties as those which Democritus ascribed to atoms. REPLY: Right. Atoms are INVISIBLE, according to Democritus, but LEGO BLOCKS aren't! IVO: And |
