What is the Scientific Method? (hell, Isaac, science)

[Rolling_Stone]

Originally Posted by mr.guy

How do these three things differ?

Look it up.

[Jaiket]

Originally Posted by Rolling_Stone

all physical objects are defined in terms of other physical objects, so the definition is circular.

Why is that a problem?

[Fluffy]

Originally Posted by Rolling Stone

It is the measurement of anything that carries force, energy, and momentum. By this definition, even an electromagnetic field is a physical object. But all physical objects are defined in terms of other physical objects, so the definition is circular. So is science really science?

Excellent point.

When we construct propositions, there are two problematic attributes that affect their meaning:
1) Ambiguity
If a proposition is ambiguous then its meaning is overdetermined. The words of the proposition can refer to multiple things and it is unclear to which things they refer. For example, "Adam bought a dozen eggs" is ambiguous if we don't understand which person "Adam" refers to.
2) Vagary
If a proposition is vague then its meaning is undetermined. The words of the proposition are not properly defined and don't refer to anything in particular. For example, "A force is what causes a mass to accelerate" is vague because the meaning of "force" is not clear.

Typically we do not allow propositions to be ambiguous but we give much more leeway to vagary. Why? Well if we have multiple definitions of different terms then it is easier to specify which one we wish to mean and thus it is easier to get rid of ambiguity. Vagary on the other hand is much harder to rid ourselves of for the very reason you talk about.

There have been various attempts to deal with vagary usually involving an appeal to multi-value logic in which more truth values than just "true" and "false" are used. Generally, however, it is accepted that, even though it appears that all definitions are circular and so no word will ever not be vague, we can still understand the meaning of such words.

Consider the example I used earlier of a vague sentence "A force is what causes a mass to accelerate". This is obviously vague yet it appears that we understand it on some level. Many have taken this to indicate that eliminating vagary is not actually necessary in order to be meaningful.

[Rolling_Stone]

Originally Posted by Jaiket

Why is that a problem?

If I were to define spirit in terms of spirit, you would be very quick to say the definition was circular because the definition assumes the existence of the very thing it defines. Science assumes that external reality exists, but this cannot be proved since all of our observations are necessarily purely mental images: all observations of so-called "external" reality are really observations of our own mental impressions that result from some stimulus that is presumed to be external to the mind.

[camanintx]

Originally Posted by Rolling_Stone

If I were to define spirit in terms of spirit, you would be very quick to say the definition was circular because the definition assumes the existence of the very thing it defines. Science assumes that external reality exists, but this cannot be proved since all of our observations are necessarily purely mental images: all observations of so-called "external" reality are really observations of our own mental impressions that result from some stimulus that is presumed to be external to the mind.

Since all logical proofs rest upon one unfounded assumption or another, isn't the question really which assumption is the most reasonable? Is it better to start with the assumption that reality corresponds with our perception or that there is an underlying reality that we cannot experience?

[Rolling_Stone]

Originally Posted by camanintx

Since all logical proofs rest upon one unfounded assumption or another, isn't the question really which assumption is the most reasonable? Is it better to start with the assumption that reality corresponds with our perception or that there is an underlying reality that we cannot experience?

Okay. Here's what it's telling us:

Ironic, isn't it, that the careful, painstaking, empirical and theoretical study of external physical reality contains the seeds of its own destruction?

Edit: Here's a new word for you: "apperception." Learn it and, perhaps, you will realize that "an underlying reality that we cannot experience" is limited to physical sensation and therefore a non sequitur.

[camanintx]

Originally Posted by Rolling_Stone

Edit: Here's a new word for you: "apperception." Learn it and, perhaps, you will realize that "an underlying reality that we cannot experience" is limited to physical sensation and therefore a non sequitur.

I think that was the point of my post.

[Rolling_Stone]

Originally Posted by camanintx

I think that was the point of my post.

I don't think so. Something apperceived is not physical, but not unexperienced, either.

[camanintx]

Originally Posted by Rolling_Stone

I don't think so. Something apperceived is not physical, but not unexperienced, either.

So if we don't experience it then it is not apperceived?