Why are the Sciences Empirical?

[Polymath257]

And I’d like to answer your question, but I am asking for clarification.

Can you rephrase the question that's less ambiguous?

I suspect this is a question wanting to discuss the fact that no free quark has been seen (nor is expected to be seen).

While this is true, the quark model is very firmly based in empiricism. It makes testable predictions that have been verified in detail. And that includes scattering experiments showing there are particles within protons and neutrons.

 

[Polymath257]

I get your point. In my field, I deal with electrical theory, electrical transformation using vectors, and electrical generation. With working in this field though, I have had to take pause in seeing the big picture in that, science does not actually know what electricity is. Science only knows how to ‘contain’ it, and predict things about it.

...That's where my philosophical curiosities took root -as a side interest. I guess maybe picking up where science ended?

I'm not sure why you think we don't know what electricity is. It is the movement of charges particles, mostly electrons. We have some very detailed models based on this that show how, for example, resistance is produced from the scattering of those electrons, what happens in semi-conductors, etc.

All is based on how charges particles react to electromagnetic fields. maybe you meant that we don't know what such fields are? If so,, I'm not sure what sort of answer you want. As far as we know, EM is a fundamental force--it is not to be described in terms of more fundamental aspects.

 

[gnostic]

That's where my philosophical curiosities took root -as a side interest. I guess maybe picking up where science ended?

“...side interest”?

Mmm...maybe.

But pick up “where science ended”?

Philosophies have never be so successful in doing that. Well, maybe it is okay mixing social sciences with philosophies, some philosophies have some merits in this area.

BUT, with Natural Science?

When Natural Philosophy became Natural Science, during the very late 19th century and early 20th century, philosophies began to phase out of (natural) science, because it was becoming clear how obsolete and pointless philosophies in these branches of science.

You have to remember, there are many different types of philosophies, and some of them clearly have no values in science.

And even those are relevant, you will still get mix messages, from one philosopher to another.

And if there are disagreements between two or more philosophers, how would you determine whose philosophy is right?

Philosophers of one school of thought, will always defend it against all other opposing philosophers or schools, so really, Landon, philosophers cannot be trusted to be fair or impartial/objective.

For modern science, particularly in natural or physical science, several philosophies have relevance:

1. Empiricism
2. Methodological Naturalism
3. Logical Positivism

All 3 favored letting evidence to objectively determine which proposed knowledge is or isn’t science.

Any knowledge presented must be tested, and in the case of science, and such test can be done with discoveries or the availability of the evidence or with experiments in more controlled environment (eg in labs).

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

Philosophy, particularly modern philosophies, are not very useful.

Yeah, I know what you are saying.. Yet your problem is that this claim is not scientific. It is philosophy. Because what is useful, is not an empirical claim. You can't test it using your senses, i.e. external independent of the brain observation.
So your problem is that there is no scientific theory of useful and you are not doing science, when you claim useful.

You are on the playing field of philosophy. It is that simple. That empiricism is useful, is not empirical.

 

[Polymath257]

Yeah, I know what you are saying.. Yet your problem is that this claim is not scientific. It is philosophy. Because what is useful, is not an empirical claim. You can't test it using your senses, i.e. external independent of the brain observation.
So your problem is that there is no scientific theory of useful and you are not doing science, when you claim useful.

You are on the playing field of philosophy. It is that simple. That empiricism is useful, is not empirical.

I disagree. Given that the goal (knowledge of the universe) is accepted, the empirical fact is that empiricism has succeeded better than any previous philosophy.

Empiricism can't decide on goals. But it can very much help to determine what is useful for achieving those goals.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I disagree. Given that the goal (knowledge of the universe) is accepted, the empirical fact is that empiricism has succeeded better than any previous philosophy.

Empiricism can't decide on goals. But it can very much help to determine what is useful for achieving those goals.

You see, that you can disagree, is what makes it philosophy and not science. We can disagree on what useful is and both have a life. That is what makes it philosophy.
You don't decide the goal. Nor do I. And you can't give any evidence for what goal is better or not.
I don't accept your goal of knowledge of the universe. And I can't give you any knowledge as you properly understand knowledge for my goal. If you can accept that, we can move beyond science. If not, we might as well stop here.

 

[Polymath257]

You see, that you can disagree, is what makes it philosophy and not science. We can disagree on what useful is and both have a life. That is what makes it philosophy.
You don't decide the goal. Nor do I. And you can't give any evidence for what goal is better or not.
I don't accept your goal of knowledge of the universe. And I can't give you any knowledge as you properly understand knowledge for my goal. If you can accept that, we can move beyond science. If not, we might as well stop here.

The goal *of science* is understanding the universe. If that is not your goal, then you are not doing science. It really is that simple.


I get to decide *my* goal. You get to decide *your* goal. To decide which is 'better', we need criteria for such. We can then compare what we observe to those criteria and determine which fits the criteria better.

I can ask what your goal is and we can then use science to determine the best strategies for meeting that goal: hypothesis formation, testing, etc.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The goal *of science* is understanding the universe. If that is not your goal, then you are not doing science. It really is that simple.


I get to decide *my* goal. You get to decide *your* goal. To decide which is 'better', we need criteria for such. We can then compare what we observe to those criteria and determine which fits the criteria better.

I can ask what your goal is and we can then use science to determine the best strategies for meeting that goal: hypothesis formation, testing, etc.

Now consider this. If I understand something about reality, which is outside science, do I have knowledge? Or do you decide what knowledge is and we can only do this inside the universe using science.
In a sense you have made an absolute claim. There is the universe and only science have knowledge? Or you accept that you can understand something about the universe without science.
We are back at qualia in a sense. Can you know something not based on science?

In the end my goal relevant to this, is to understand the limits of science. So if there are limits to science, you can only test that, if you accept a test that can show that.
In your words the hypothesis is that there could be a limit to science. We know it works in some sense, so we can ask if there is another sense in which it doesn't work?
So how would you test if science has a limit?

 

[Polymath257]

Now consider this. If I understand something about reality, which is outside science, do I have knowledge? Or do you decide what knowledge is and we can only do this inside the universe using science.

I don't know. How did you acquire this knowledge and understanding? What justifies your label of 'knowledge' and 'understanding'?

In a sense you have made an absolute claim. There is the universe and only science have knowledge? Or you accept that you can understand something about the universe without science.

I'm not sure how I can claim understanding without testing. And testing is the essence of science.

We are back at qualia in a sense. Can you know something not based on science?

Well, qualia, to the extent they make sense, are the raw materials of observation. And that is one of the essentials of science.

In the end my goal relevant to this, is to understand the limits of science. So if there are limits to science, you can only test that, if you accept a test that can show that.
In your words the hypothesis is that there could be a limit to science. We know it works in some sense, so we can ask if there is another sense in which it doesn't work?
So how would you test if science has a limit?

Except that isn't a valid hypothesis: it is inherently non-testable. To *be* a valid hypothesis requires testability.

We test if science has a limit by practice: we see what it can answer and what it cannot. For example, it cannot answer moral questions since those are ultimately value judgements. Science also cannot answer aesthetic judgements.

So, of course, we *do* know that science has limits. It's limit is that it cannot make value judgements.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don't know. How did you acquire this knowledge and understanding? What justifies your label of 'knowledge' and 'understanding'?

I'm not sure how I can claim understanding without testing. And testing is the essence of science.

Well, qualia, to the extent they make sense, are the raw materials of observation. And that is one of the essentials of science.

Except that isn't a valid hypothesis: it is inherently non-testable. To *be* a valid hypothesis requires testability.

We test if science has a limit by practice: we see what it can answer and what it cannot. For example, it cannot answer moral questions since those are ultimately value judgements. Science also cannot answer aesthetic judgements.

So, of course, we *do* know that science has limits. It's limit is that it cannot make value judgements.

Well, here is one way to understand a quale. Take a moral judgment of "good". That is a quale. You know it, yet you can't use science to decide if it is good or not.
"Good" is not an observation, yet you know what good is as an experience.
So now I can answer what I think the goal is for me. To figure out what is good for me and how that can include other humans. Of course to have a life I use the products of science, but there is more than science.

So now some philosophy and back to our old subject of subjectivity.
As for your idea is that the universe can be explained based on observations, quale as.the raw materials of observation; I only have to answer - No, the universe can't be explained based on observations alone as per observation as external sensations of what goes on outside your brain.
That is the limit of empiricism. Not that rationalism works, but rather that knowledge based on empiricism have a limit.
When you act e.g. in a moral sense, you do something as a part of the universe, yet it is not knowledge as per science. If you then answer that morality is not knowledge, you are doing philosophy.

It goes back to the bold words. You test and justify what is valid for you in a moral sense based on what makes sense to you. That it makes sense is the non-observational part of how to understand knowledge. Knowledge is about how we make sense of the universe, but we don't only use science.

You use a word - justify - which is not science, rather it is used to justify how we, humans, give reasons to how we act and how we think we ought to act. That is philosophy and to some humans religion. And it has an element of morality, i.e. how we ought to act. That is how science is connected to morality. Science is in a sense a set of rules of how you ought to act and for which you give justification.
The joke is that the moment someone tries to justify science, they stop doing science and start doing philosophy and/or religion.

 

[Cooky]

Yes, science has hypothesis formation built into its very structure. But, generally, philosophy as such has very little value in actually formulating hypotheses. Philosophy is NOT the same as imagination!

Do you also hate poetry and art? After all, there is very little "value" in them in terms of gain.

 

[Polymath257]

Well, here is one way to understand a quale. Take a moral judgment of "good". That is a quale. You know it, yet you can't use science to decide if it is good or not.

Hmmm... I know that I *like* something. I don't know immediately that something is 'good'. That takes more.

"Good" is not an observation, yet you know what good is as an experience.

I wouldn't say it that way. I know something is good as a value judgement.

So now I can answer what I think the goal is for me. To figure out what is good for me and how that can include other humans. Of course to have a life I use the products of science, but there is more than science.

OK. Makes sense as a goal.

So now some philosophy and back to our old subject of subjectivity.
As for your idea is that the universe can be explained based on observations, quale as.the raw materials of observation; I only have to answer - No, the universe can't be explained based on observations alone as per observation as external sensations of what goes on outside your brain.
That is the limit of empiricism. Not that rationalism works, but rather that knowledge based on empiricism have a limit.
When you act e.g. in a moral sense, you do something as a part of the universe, yet it is not knowledge as per science. If you then answer that morality is not knowledge, you are doing philosophy.

OK, I see moral and aesthetic judgements as *opinions* and not as *knowledge*. They are NOT inherent in things in the universe, but are instead our evaluations of such.

Yes,philosophy has some value in getting things going. But after that limited role, it hasn't proven itself useful in actually getting any answers.

It goes back to the bold words. You test and justify what is valid for you in a moral sense based on what makes sense to you. That it makes sense is the non-observational part of how to understand knowledge. Knowledge is about how we make sense of the universe, but we don't only use science.

OK, I disagree. Knowledge is concerned with facts. Moral judgements are not knowledge, but are opinions: each person decides for themselves what is of value to them. That is different than knowledge, where the truth is common to all.

You use a word - justify - which is not science, rather it is used to justify how we, humans, give reasons to how we act and how we think we ought to act.

Nope. That is NOT the sense in which I was using the word. I was using the word in the sense that knowledge is 'justified true belief'.

That is philosophy and to some humans religion. And it has an element of morality, i.e. how we ought to act. That is how science is connected to morality. Science is in a sense a set of rules of how you ought to act and for which you give justification.

Nope. Science is a procedure for finding things out about the universe. If you don't want to learn about the universe, there is nothing more to say.

The joke is that the moment someone tries to justify science, they stop doing science and start doing philosophy and/or religion.

Right. Which is why philosophy is only good at the beginning of the process. It fails miserably to do anything past that. And religion fails at every stage as far as I can see (except as motivation or opinion).

 

[Polymath257]

Do you also hate poetry and art? After all, there is very little "value" in them in terms of gain.

Poetry doesn't do much for me, but I quite like art,music, literature, etc.

None is particularly good at providing good hypotheses for understanding the world. But that doesn't mean they don't have other values. It's just that the value isn't in helping to understand the universe.

Also, I *like* philosophy. It is fun as a diversion when hanging out with friends. It just isn't useful for really understanding anything.

 

[Cooky]

Poetry doesn't do much for me, but I quite like art,music, literature, etc.

None is particularly good at providing good hypotheses for understanding the world. But that doesn't mean they don't have other values. It's just that the value isn't in helping to understand the universe.

Also, I *like* philosophy. It is fun as a diversion when hanging out with friends. It just isn't useful for really understanding anything.

Well duh.

 

[atanu]

Well, the quark model makes many predictions that can be tested. Among the easier predictions are the types of composite particles that are allowed. So, the existence of the charm quark means that we expect composite particles made out of charm plus other quarks (mesons with two quarks, baryons with three). The theory also predicts the types and probabilities of decays for those composite particles.

As for evidence of the quarks themselves, there are scattering experiments that show that protons and neutrons have internal particles that act 'free' inside those baryons. Again, the quark model predicts and explains such scattering experiments.

Thank you.

Since, as per quantum contextuality, measurements of quantum observables cannot simply be thought of as revealing pre-existing values, the validations are also so. Isn’t it?

 

[Polymath257]

Thank you.

Since, as per quantum contextuality, measurements of quantum observables cannot simply be thought of as revealing pre-existing values, the validations are also so. Isn’t it?

I don't understand your question. The values of things like momentum, spin, etc are not determined ahead of time. I'm not sure what significance is to the quark model.

 

[gnostic]

Also, I *like* philosophy. It is fun as a diversion when hanging out with friends. It just isn't useful for really understanding anything.

I personally find modern or contemporary Metaphysics to be over-rated, useless and pointless.

 

[Sunstone]

Also, I *like* philosophy. It is fun as a diversion when hanging out with friends. It just isn't useful for really understanding anything.

The statement "Philosophy isn't really useful for understanding anything" happens to be a philosophical statement. Therefore it must be false, because if it were true, it would contradict itself.

 

[Polymath257]

The statement "Philosophy isn't really useful for understanding anything" happens to be a philosophical statement. Therefore it must be false, because if it were true, it would contradict itself.

Yes, it is a philosophical statement and thereby not useful for understanding anything. No contradiction at all.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Recently, I heard someone allege that the sciences are empirically oriented because they are dominated by atheists who wish to deny the existence of God. Going beyond the obvious truth of that [/sarcasm], what other reasons might there be for why the sciences are empirically oriented?

Science is hardly atheistic. My aunt was a deeply religious woman and she was a scientist. There are scientists who are atheists, scientists who are agnostic, scientists who are religious, and scientists who don't engage in the question.

Science is empirically oriented because observation and experience in the old days simply seemed to be highly trustworthy -- more trustworthy than, say, logic (since people often reason badly). Today we can add that empiricism has produced result well beyond any other philosophy or religion, in the way of life easing technology and modern medicine.