1451. Physicist Neil Turok: Big Bang Wasn't the Beginning

Comment #132277 by Bonzai on February 24, 2008 at 2:39 pm

Spinoza,

Bonzai, that's because non-philosophers are content to misunderstand others without realizing it.

Misunderstanding occurs, that is life. It is not difficult to rectify, the technique is called "ASK IF IT IS UNCLEAR"

I don't think you need to study sophisticated philosophy to master this technique.

On the other hand, witnessing philosophers having informal talks among themselves doesn't convince me that they are better in communicating themselves than the non philosophers.

In fact just the opposite, very often you see their conversations degenerate into massive confusions because of the tangential word games that only philosophers would play.

You're also just rehashing a debate that went on in philosophy 100 years ago. Check out "Ordinary Language Philosophy" (Austin, Ryle, Strawson, Wittgenstein, etc).

I wouldn't be surprised that it is old hat, many philosophers are still doing Plato, But then not knowing what the movement was all about I would expect that "ordinary language" was found to be inadequate for the purpose of Scholastic philosophy because the later often doesn't have a specific enough context and a shared substrate of meanings except through words. .

That's nonsense. There is no such thing as "meaning" independent of context.

Yes, of course. But what is peculiar about philosophy is that the context is often also constructed with words with nothing else to anchor the words (consider metaphysics)

In physics, for example, there is a vast substrate of shared meanings made up of intuitions, data, facts, equations etc. People with shared access to this substrate of meanings can communicate even without spelling out everything in details and making all the qualifying clauses. Words are just pointers.

Sometimes even mathematics is just pointers, mathematicians would cringe at some mathematical procedures that physicists use, for example getting rid of infinities with renormalization. It is definitely mathematically wrong (anyone who writes infinity -infinity = 0 in a first year calculus course would definitely get a zero)but it works. The reason why it works in the context that physicists use it is not to be found in the mathematical formalism, the physics is hidden somewhere, it is important to find that out. But my point is, in this case the math is just a "pointer", it would be missing the point to just say that the math is not kosher, more important is to explain why unkosher math actually works for these problems.

Since I don't want to start another fight with yet another philosopher I will just leave it as that. Let's agree to disagree.

1452. Physicist Neil Turok: Big Bang Wasn't the Beginning

Comment #132249 by Bonzai on February 24, 2008 at 2:09 pm

Brian,

Quine's nitpicking has nothing to do with string theory, it is about the inductive nature of science.

His second post on "only way" is equally misplaced. By that Turok means the only way compatible with known constraints imposed by relativity and Quantum mechanics etc. No one in physics would be talking about logically impossibilities, again showing that Quine missed the context,

EDIT; That was an interview about some ideas on the speculative end of cosmology, Turok was not giving a lecture on scientific method 101 for Zeus' sake.

1453. Physicist Neil Turok: Big Bang Wasn't the Beginning

Comment #132236 by Bonzai on February 24, 2008 at 1:56 pm

Quine,

Stop the pedantic nitpicking, would you?

I hate to keep saying this, somehow it seems only philosophers have problems understanding people making simple points without spelling out everything explicitly.

My theory is that all *real* discussions happen within a context and the context would clarify the intended meanings of words. For example, scientists or just people who have some basic understanding of how science works would have no problem parsing Turok's statement and understand his intended meaning.

But philosophical discussions often take place at such a high level of generality and abstraction that they are divorced from any concrete context,--in other words they may very well be just BS pretending to be profound discussions.

In the absence of any context words are the only tool for philosophers to convey "meanings",--though I would be somewhat hesitant to consider much of metaphysics or ontology "meaningful", but that's just me.

Spending too much time on these scholastic activities may lead to an occupational hazard for the philosopher, namely a failure to understand how people use language informally in real communications and the tendency to appear like condescending smart asses when he tries to "correct" others' perceived misuse of language,--this may actually be a health hazard because it may lead to beating in some circles

EDIT: Not to single out philosophers I notice the same affliction in some lawyers as well, though not as serious.

1454. Fleabytes

Comment #132180 by Bonzai on February 24, 2008 at 12:27 pm

I agree with someone who posted yesterday that knowing the history of the bible,the way that stories are told and retold and myths are transmitted etc, the question then becomes not even what evidence there is for the Christian God, but what can be the possible reasons for believing stories which are clearly created by man, laden with wholesale and retail plagiarisms from beginning to the end.

The bible is so artificial and parochial that it smells of a bad soap opera dreamed up by rather unimaginative authors. In contrast, the ancient Greeks told much better stories.

To get into complexity of mind and quantum mechanics to argue against such a God is IMHO overkill, the Christian God is too primitive for that,--he likes burnt offering, he is a peeping Tom who gets busy and upset about who people sleep with, he got involved with tribal warfare, gets jealous because we don't praise him enough and is into blood sacrifice.

This is not even a God made up to explain big bang or "fine tuning", this is just some tribal idol made up in the image of its ignorant and superstitious creators. The master of the universe cannot be so petty and small.

Contemporary Christians bring up issues like fine tuning only to make their Bronze age belief sounds less ridiculous. These people often don't have the slightest understanding of the questions, let alone the answers or attempted answers. The bible not only doesn't have the answers to these questions, it doesn't even contain any hint that there may be questions. The Greek philosophers didn't have a lot of correct answers, but at least they did ask interesting questions and offered some well thought out, abeit speculative answers. Not so with the Abrahamic religions, they are just a notch above worshiping rocks.

It could be interesting and fruitful to engage sophisticated theists who believe in "the God of the philosopher" in scientific and philosophical debates, but for idiots who believe in "the God of Abraham and Issac" and "Jesus died on the cross for us" it is mostly a waste of time. Their religion is simply vulgar superstition. Most of what you say will just go over their heads.

In the end they believe because they got under evolved ape brains, Whenever I see Priests, Rabis and Imams in funny cloths reciting from their "holy books" in all seriousness I am reminded of the creature in Doctor Moraeu's Island who declares "This is the law".

EDIT: For these reasons, I can't find any compelling reason to believe in the Bible even if Darwin never existed. One could do as well to pick other mythologies.

1455. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #132150 by Bonzai on February 24, 2008 at 10:54 am

Wooter hasn't answered my question. Why does God design his ass in such a way that it splits into two cheeks? How did God do that, did he strike it with a sword, or was it King Arthur?

I have no idea why you guys are still talking to him. Boredom,perhaps?

1456. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #132149 by Bonzai on February 24, 2008 at 10:51 am

Steve,

Perhaps you are right though. Even though I am only 5'6", there is no reason why I should not achieve greatness at basketball. I just need to get taller, and jump harder. Or is the height of that basket just a matter of perception?

Plastic surgery man, plastic surgery. Though your kneecaps may explode if you jump too hard especially when they are made of tissues from someone 's balls according to South Park.

1457. Ayaan Hirsi Ali asks for protection

Comment #132025 by Bonzai on February 24, 2008 at 12:11 am

Teratornis ,

DUDE! TAKE IT EASY ON THE KEYBOARD!

Can you be more concise? No one's gona read that long winded shit.

Instead of spending so much time in front of the computer typing up tripes that most people would just ignore why not take a walk outside to meet some real people? You may actually get a real date so you no longer have to daydream about cyber-sex...

1458. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #132006 by Bonzai on February 23, 2008 at 9:52 pm

So wooter why does your ass split up into two cheeks? Was it because of God or King Arthur trying out his mighty sword there?

1459. Fleabytes

Comment #132005 by Bonzai on February 23, 2008 at 9:42 pm

If you cannot even find meanings in this life, what is eternity to you? It would be just the same deary void but magnified infinite fold. If there is a hell that would be it. Hell is a punishment for the believers. Their sin is rejecting life,--real life at the present.

Beauty is often fleeting. Very often we find something beautiful exactly because it is rare and transient.The sunset is beautiful because it doesn't last forever, otherwise it would be just a static sky.

1460. Ayaan Hirsi Ali asks for protection

Comment #131995 by Bonzai on February 23, 2008 at 8:42 pm

How are we going to convince Muslims in Africa to abandon their religion as long as doing so would effectively unleash a plague on them? Obviously we have to solve the sex problem with technology before we even have an argument.

So you think you have better luck to convince Muslims in Africa to switch to cyber sex?

Come now, I don't mean to burst your techno bubble, but I really think you should get out more and smell the coffee (or the flowers, the dog shit, anything real)

The fact is many Africans don't even have running water, electricity, basic literacy and food. I can't see how realistic it is to wire everyone up to virtual sex. Even if the resources are there they could be put to much better use,

What Africa needs is genuine development that will raise the living standard of the ordinary people,--as oppose to enriching a small elite and Western corporations, With a rise of living standard and education, the hold of religion will loosen.

BTW You do need petroleum by-products to make computer parts and create the web of technology that can support your virtual utopia. After all technology doesn't exist in a vacuum and it requires a certain level of overall development to make the deployment of a particular technology possible and sensible. Your solution to turn life into a virtual existence is not cost free given all your dire warnings about peak oil.

1461. Fleabytes

Comment #131984 by Bonzai on February 23, 2008 at 6:32 pm

Robertson suggests that falling academic standards have coincided with the decline in Christianity and the rise in secularism,

DR is absolutely right. In the first day of class in Catholic schools children ask their teacher, pointing at the crucifix hanging on the classroom wall "Why is that man nailed to a cross?"

Teacher replies, " That is what happens to lazy students who don't do their homework."

But seriously, I do wonder how teachers are supposed to tell a 6 year old what happened to that man on the cross.. Is that not child abuse to expose young children to such grotesque image of execution on a daily basis? Would any parent allow their young children to watch much milder forms of violence on TV?

1462. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #131981 by Bonzai on February 23, 2008 at 6:21 pm

He just need to get laid.

1463. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #131966 by Bonzai on February 23, 2008 at 5:34 pm

- that's what he thinks about being gay.

To clarify, he thinks being gay is ok, it is God's "test".

You sin only when you act on your homosexual desire (so failing test = immorality, what a concept in education, maybe should adopt that in the school system)

I wonder what does Jesus think of a man being pegged by a butch woman with a dildo while fantasizing that he is having gay sex with a man. Is that sinning all the way or just half bad?

Perhaps someone can write his Ph.D. thesis in theology on that.

1464. Fleabytes

Comment #131963 by Bonzai on February 23, 2008 at 5:24 pm

Rick M

. At least, compared to Steve, I'm stunningly handsome.

Ouch..!!!

1465. Fleabytes

Comment #131961 by Bonzai on February 23, 2008 at 5:19 pm

Buffy was good in the beginning, but the later episodes sucked.Spike turned into a $%^ after falling in love with Buffy. He was soooo sexy when he was evil.

1466. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #131958 by Bonzai on February 23, 2008 at 5:14 pm

No, I really did need to apologise to Shrommer. For all I know he/she may be a decent person screwed up by bigoted dogma. I should be attacking the dogma, not the person

On re-reading his point seems to be that since all of us are rotten having gay sex really doesn't stand out. So at least we should give him the credit for being an equal opportunity human basher (or trasher, whatever the UK term is, I realize "bashing" may mean the opposite in the UK, as in "bible bashing fundamentalists")

The message I got from Shrommer is that Jesus had paid for our sin already, it is like having prepaid credits in your account. It is a gift from God and it would be disrespectful if we don't use the credit, right?

Well I should go out to get some gay sex, because if I don't sin Jesus would have died in vain, that would be a shame. I am very cute and attractive (and very high!) ;-)

1467. Fleabytes

Comment #131950 by Bonzai on February 23, 2008 at 4:56 pm

Rick,

Who's that dude in your avatar? Look suspicious..

1468. Fleabytes

Comment #131946 by Bonzai on February 23, 2008 at 4:53 pm

NMcC,

That was a joke for $%&'s sake!

1469. Fleabytes

Comment #131940 by Bonzai on February 23, 2008 at 4:29 pm

Well I do have a sense of humour but NMCc may get this site closed down by the Scotland Yard for appearing to be plotting terrorism, not to mention probably getting himself arrested and tortured by bare chested burly men in hoods in some god forsaken prison somewhere.

Even worse, DR may cite these posts in his next book the Dawkins letter II as evidence for an atheist conspiracy to kill him.

So while I am not offended I think NMCc did make a bad move. There is a War On Terror (WOT)going on and you don't joke about assassination on public forums.

1470. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #131936 by Bonzai on February 23, 2008 at 4:19 pm

Hey steve,

Stop apologizing already! :-)

Gay or straight, who cares? I am sleeping with myself these days anyway. (so that makes me super gay since there is only one me and certainly I am of the same sex as myself.) so consider yourself lucky..

1471. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #131830 by Bonzai on February 23, 2008 at 12:02 pm

None of the eyewitnesses are alive today, just as none of the eyewitnesses of most historical events are no longer alive today. You may choose to discount all historical evidence as no evidence at all, and only believe things that are repeatably verifiable in the present. That is what most atheists do when they make the scientific method their God.

But in your case all of the so called eye-witnesses were from the same second hand, partisan source which also happened to be an advertisement for the very event that they supposedly witnessed ("the Gospels" means "good news", they were meant to be propaganda even for the contemporary readers).

So you have a problem. Even the existence of these "eye-witnesses" cannot be independently corroborated, let alone the event they allegedly witnessed.

Suppose you go to the police and say that some guy,--happens to be someone you hate passionately,- has committed murder.You didn't see the murder with your own eyes but you were told by 100 people who saw the actual murder. However, after some investigations no dead body was found, none of the 100 witnesses can be located because apparently they are only known to you in the whole wide world.

It all boils down to the words of one person who might have a strong motive to get the accused into troubles,--namely you,--with no witness and zero material evidence.

What should the cops make of that? I think you should be charged for mischief or be sent to a shrink for observation.

1472. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #131821 by Bonzai on February 23, 2008 at 11:46 am

The Bible was written by a bunch of fearful, ignorant , primitive men wandering about in a desert. They made their God in their own collective image, parochial, small minded and full of irrational hang ups.

Jesus was a gay man, otherwise why was he never married but instead sleeping and eating with a company of 12 men with smelly armpits? It is also telling that he was always talking about "love" in a pink constume, He was probably having constant orgies with his party of 12,--didn't he smell their feet or something? These were all in the Sodom Bible, soon to be found in some cave in the Middle East.

1473. Whale Evolution

Comment #131765 by Bonzai on February 23, 2008 at 7:41 am

Radesq,

When the environment changes or when smaller groups move and get geographically isolated then natural selection kicks into high gear out of necessity.

Actually sympatric speciation is well documented. In sympatric speciation the emerging species remain mixed with the parent species throughout the speciation process. Clearly we cannot explain this by arguing that gene flow between the sub-population and the parent population has been switched off due to physical separation.

As mentioned in my post above, Stewart and Golubitsky have developed a model for this kind of mechanism using the theory of symmetry breaking bifurcations.

1474. Fleabytes

Comment #131737 by Bonzai on February 23, 2008 at 5:05 am

OK, I really shouldn't get involved in this never ending soap opera with David, but this caught my eyes.

But the key question is 'why do you believe there is no god? And the answer usually is �"because there is no evidence" show us the evidence'. But then you will only allow the kind of evidence that can be proved in a lab. In other words atheists are de facto naturalists and materialists. It is from that particular philosophy that your atheism comes. It is your creed. You cannot prove it because it itself is unprveable in your own materialist terms. You assume it and you engage in the circular argument of 'prove to me that there is something outside of the material, and you must do so in a material way!'.

The simple answer is that outside religion I am sure David uses the same criteria to evaluate claims, beliefs and alleged facts as the atheists or he wouldn't be able to function. That doesn't necessarily involve going to the lab, as Billy Sands pointed out.

So it is not the case that atheism represents any special "creed", it is just being consistent! It is the theists who want to change the rule when it comes to their favourite mythologies.

1475. Whale Evolution

Comment #131726 by Bonzai on February 23, 2008 at 4:32 am

Geoff,

I would like to take this opportunity to recommend Stewart and Golubitsky's fascinating book "the fearful symmetry". It is a popular science book on the general theme of the role of symmetry breaking in pattern formation (not confined to biology in particular). I find it full of interesting ideas and extremely well written. I don't know if you can find it very easily in book stores as it is probably not a best seller like Hawking's or Dawkin's pop science books, but you can probably get it on amazon or the libraries.

Those who are competent in advanced mathematics (graduate school level) may want to check out "the symmetry perspective" by the same authors.

1476. Over half of Britons claim no religion

Comment #131717 by Bonzai on February 23, 2008 at 4:13 am

The report claims that two-thirds of British people now do not admit to any religious adherence.

Two thirds is much bigger than the impression conveyed by the vague expression "over half" in the title. Barely 51% is "over half" too! Before reading the article I was thinking about a percentage hovering around 50%.

According to the report into the freedom of religion and belief in the UK, there is an "overall respect for human rights and their value." But the report warns that Muslims in particular face screening, searches, interrogation and arrest.

Perhaps that is at least partly because the speech and actions of too many Muslims convey the impression that Islam doesn't have an "overall respect for human rights and their value."?

1477. Whale Evolution

Comment #131709 by Bonzai on February 23, 2008 at 3:42 am

Steve,

I have to admit I am a huge fan of the Dawkins school of things, primarily because it is so rigorous in the way it analyses things, involving use mathematical models that have changed our minds about what will and won't work in terms of selection. One example of this is the Zahavian Handicap principle. Whereas, the Gouldian approach seems more to be a kind of "let's just think about this" approach based more on word arguments, which is fine, but needs more rigour to be, in my opinion, sound.

What do you think of Stuart Kauffmann?

I must say as a mathematician I find his ideas quite interesting. There may be more universal mathematical principles at work in evolution and the formation of biological structures other than just natural selections acting on mutations.I am trying to read his big book "the origins of order" at the moment.

Ian Stewart and Martin Golubitsky try to apply spontaneous symmetry breaking (bifurcation theory with symmetry) to understand some aspects of evolution and biological pattern formations. One application is a model(albeit simplified) for sympatric speciation. I don't know enough biology to know how useful these models are in biology specifically but they are quite interesting in non linear dynamics and in understanding pattern formation and self organization in general.

Edit: An attractive aspect of the Stewart-Golubitsky approach is its emphasis on model independence, in other words it starts from general considerations of symmetry and universal properties of certain types of (systems of) differential equations but doesn't require any detail knowledge of the equations. In fact one doesn't even need to write down the equations in many applications. This is a robust approach because in reality the differential equations are likely to be just some kind of phenomenological approximations and models that are sensitive to the details of the equations are probably very limited in usefulness.

1478. Fleabytes

Comment #131599 by Bonzai on February 22, 2008 at 4:33 pm

Russell Blackford

Good post. I think you nail it with this.

Now, 3. is important, because it rules out people saying simply: "You can deduce anything from a false proposition." No you can't: not unless the proposition is a contradiction or you are prepared to introduce a contradiction by dishonestly relying on a proposition that you know to be false, while also relying on its falsehood.

Now I think the point that Bafoz made originally was probably just that you could get P-->Q (not Q!) for any Q if P is known to be false. The fishy part (as you highlighted) is to use P(which we know is false) as a premise in a deduction to get Q.


kaiserkriss wrote

If DR were a Muslim, he'd be one of the Mullahs advocating violence to the infidel.

Just notice this.It looks like an example of the kind of conditionals with false antecedents that we are discussing. But in context this is actually a rhetorical device, not an assertion that has a truth value even though it looks like a conditional.This is probably the most common way this kind of constructions arise in real writings.

1479. Fleabytes

Comment #131543 by Bonzai on February 22, 2008 at 2:18 pm

Al-rawandi,

. No American guy goes to the bathroom with another guy

Unless they want to have sex?

1480. Fleabytes

Comment #131507 by Bonzai on February 22, 2008 at 1:37 pm

epeeist

Go to a busy pub in the UK with your friends and significant others. At some point one of the women will decide to go to the toilet (bathroom to you). Now in the UK, they always go in pairs and they always take their handbags (purses) with them. When they get there the cubicles are always full.

What about men? Even if two men really happen to have to go at the same time, one would hold it in until the other guy has finished. When the other guy takes a long time, he would be cursing under his breath with his two legs firmly pressed together.

1481. Over half of Britons claim no religion

Comment #131488 by Bonzai on February 22, 2008 at 1:23 pm

Steve,

Yeah, if there was a parade, some would take it to extremes, and wear special leather gear that showed off their bare intellects, and people would get offended.

No a problem here. Some guys were arrested for parading naked in the gay parade here a few years ago. The judge dismissed the charges because the men were wearing shoes, so technically not naked. :)

1482. Over half of Britons claim no religion

Comment #131483 by Bonzai on February 22, 2008 at 1:20 pm

Will there be floats in Stalin and Mao themes in the atheist parade? I look dashingly handsome in a Mao suit.

1483. Fleabytes

Comment #131469 by Bonzai on February 22, 2008 at 1:09 pm

Mphil,

Concerning "P->Q"... I see. You mean when people mistakenly assign the value 1 to P and assume the truth of P->Q. Yes, that would lead to Q being assigned the value 1 via modus ponendo ponens. Must be that I wasn't paying attention - and missed that you were talking about people already having assumed that P is true.

Yes. Another way of saying this is that you can prove anything from a contradiction.

It is more transparent if you consider formal proofs and bypass truth values altogether.

In a formal system the axioms are strings that are given "for free". One can then produce other strings ("theorems") by applying the rules of production ("rules of inference")

Suppose somehow you have included both P and ~P among your axioms. You can apply the rules to produce ("prove")any Q.

Here is how it goes.

Suppose ~(P->Q), so P&~Q, hence P. At this point we invoke ~P and get a contradiction. So we have proved that P-->Q . From P and P-->Q we get Q using MP.

The proof is completely legitimate,the "mistake"is having both P and ~P among the axioms.

I am sure you know all these.

P.S. My apologies for yesterday, I was a bit too harsh. I could have made my points more politely, perhaps it was because I was high and hadn't been sleeping for 24 hours.

1484. Fleabytes

Comment #131392 by Bonzai on February 22, 2008 at 11:59 am

Mphil,

But concerning the fact that P->Q is always true when P is false... I've never heard of "Modus Pollen". I know Modus Ponens (ponendo ponens), Modus Tollens and Modus tollendo-ponens (where you infer B from AvB and ~A).

That was a typo. Thanks for spotting it. Since you mention it here, I am not going to correct it otherwise people wouldn't know what you are talking about.

But technically, you cannot infer Q from P, when P is false in P->Q, because that would mean that from P having the value 0 (false), you could infer that Q has the value 1 (true). But this is not the case. People often make this mistake, but it's really just the case the the entire statement "P->Q" gets the value 1 whenever P gets the value 0, because, as you said, "P->Q" only has the value 0 (is false) when P gets the value 1 and Q gets the value 0.

I know, that's why I emphasized in my original post that "if you somehow accept a false premise P in a deduction" The premise is assumed only within the deduction.

Think of local constructions in computer programming which are only valid within a procedure.

But as an introduction into formal logic, there are more comprehensive and less, well, verbose works. GEB is more a work of art, but still a superb read.

It was not my purpose to recommend a comprehensive text book. For people who just want a survey of neat ideas textbooks are too heavy and too cluttered with unnecessary details.

1485. Fleabytes

Comment #131380 by Bonzai on February 22, 2008 at 11:26 am

Russell and Baefoz,

Technically it is indeed true that you can "prove" anything from a false premise.

But this is just because of the way that formal logic is set up, it doesn't mean you can "really"(I mean "legitimately" in a certain realistic sense) *prove* everything from a false premise. This wouldn't be meaningful as Russell correctly noted.

In real reasoning semantics is important but formal logic is only concerned with the form of valid reasoning. Whether in its symbolic or "classical" version, formal logic is just a model intended to capture some aspects of reasoning but we shouldn't confuse the model with what it is intended to model and push it too far,

In a formal system such as propositional calculus a "proof" is actually just a way to produce strings such as P&Q (P"and"Q), P-->Q (if P then Q) etc by mechanically applying some rules of production (or "rules of inference" to be more evocative) Here letters such and P and Q represent "sentences" (or "formulae" in predicate calculus). For example, one can produce (or "infer") Q from P and P-->Q("Modus Pollen")

In propositional calculus one models "semantics" with truth value assignments. We can assign 1 ("true") or 0 ("false") to letters P, Q etc (which are supposed to represent "sentences") in a systematic way. Intuitively this means sentences (assertions) may be true or false.

Formal sentential connectives such as "~" (not) "&" (and),"V " (or) and "-->" (if... then) are actually Boolean functions that spew out 1 or 0 based on the combinations and permutations of 1 and 0 that are fed into them. In this way you can decide the "truth values" for composite "sentences" such as P-->Q, or ~~P-->~(Q-->(P&Q)).

For example, the composite P&Q (P "and" Q) is true (having truth value 1) if both P and Q are true, it is false if at least one of P or Q is false.

By the way things are set up the conditional P-->Q is false (has value 0) only in the event that P is true and Q is false.

This corresponds to everyday reasoning, a conditional is false when the antecedent is true (condition fulfilled) but the consequence does not hold (asserted outcome does not happen).

So if P is false, P-->.Q is always "true" (in the formal sense) regardless what the truth value of Q is. Now if we somehow accept a false sentence P as a premise in a deduction, we automatically get P-->.Q for free. Using these and apply Modus Pollen we can "infer" Q. Note that Q can be anything here.

In this way you can "prove" any Q from a false premise P.

Since propositional calculus only concerns with the syntax of deduction, it doesn't always make sense when you substitute specific propositions for the symbols that appear in the strings. Meanings come from semantics.In real reasoning, it just wouldn't make sense to construct sentences like "if Russell is a scrambled egg, then Bafoz is the Queen of England". This is true technically,--in a formal sense,-- but no one ,--other than smart asses who want to impress people that they have studied formal logic,--would use such constructions in real arguments.

If you are interested in that kind of stuffs, I highly recommend Douglas Hofstadter's "Godel Escher Bach", you'll probably get more out of the book then I do because I am musically illiterate.

EDIT: My view is that formal logic is a metatheory about reasoning, it is not a a method to teach people how to reason. Studying formal logic is neither necessary nor particularly helpful in actually developing the skill of sound reasoning IMO,

1486. Don't blame Islam for terrorism, expert says

Comment #131021 by Bonzai on February 21, 2008 at 5:44 pm

Of course mainstream Islam is only that which the most Muslims believe in at a given time. It's not like religious doctrine is carved in stone...alright sometimes it is technically carved in stone.

Yes, but "mainstream" Islam is built upon layers and layers of traditions, scholar edicts and religious rulings. While it changes over time it is not something that changes with the wimps of individuals. It does have a relatively stable form.

1487. Don't blame Islam for terrorism, expert says

Comment #131014 by Bonzai on February 21, 2008 at 5:24 pm

To what extent is a belief that the martyrdom is a guaranteed route to paradise a root cause? Anybody know?

My understanding is that mainstream Islam doesn't even consider suicide attack "martyrdom". It is suicide and is strictly harem (forbidden)To be a martyr one has to die by the enemy's hand, which obviously is not the case if you strap a bomb to yourself and light the fuse. It is only the opinions of a minority of Muslim scholars (some, like OBL, are not even scholars) that suicide bombing counts as martyrdom.

So I think it is hard to argue that suicide attack is an Islamic concept. It looks more like a case of people reinterpreting their scriptures to justify their actions. If I am right it shows that the so called "fundamentalists" are just as likely to cherry pick and reinterpret their scriptures to suit their purpose. So the contention by some people (Sam Harris?) that the fundamentalists would always win in theological debates with moderates because they have the text to back them up is probably wrong,--everyone cherry picks.

Maybe Al Rawandi and clarify this.

1488. Don't blame Islam for terrorism, expert says

Comment #131000 by Bonzai on February 21, 2008 at 5:02 pm

Peak oil could start seriously disrupting the global economy at any time. And it won't be a temporary problem. Once the decline starts, it will get worse and worse almost every year. It will be a "Long Emergency." If the oil-starved world economy goes into a recession or a depression, it may become impossible to generate enough investment to develop alternative sources of energy fast enough.

Well how about going nuclear?

1489. The argument from oranges

Comment #130951 by Bonzai on February 21, 2008 at 2:32 pm

Justin Kruger and David Dunning of Cornell University's psychology department found that less competent individuals overestimated their level of competence, while more competent individuals tend to underestimate their level of competence.

Probably just because everyone more or less considers himself/herself to be average in competence. So for those who are below average it becomes an overestimation and it would be an underestimation for those who are above average.

A bit like "regression towards the mean" in statistics.

1490. Ayaan Hirsi Ali asks for protection

Comment #130861 by Bonzai on February 21, 2008 at 12:06 pm

I think Al-rawandi may be judging AHA too harshly.

I could be wrong, but to my knowledge AHA never endorses any neocon policy of the AEI aside from being on its payroll.

I think she has basically only one message and would go wherever she is given a platform to air it.

She started off with a left wing party in the Netherlands but she was shunned because she was deemed too confrontational and her anti-Islamic message collided with the "multi-cultural" ethos of many on the left. She then join the centre right liberal (?) party because they gave her a platform.

I think it was the same kind of considerations that eventually led her to the AEI. I don't think she necessarily buy into their ideas (She is an atheist and pro gay right while the AEI is full of Christian fundamentalists.) It seemed more of a marriage of convenience. When no one dared to touch her either out of fear or out of political correctness, the AEI thought it was a good publicity move to get her on board and she accepted, not having anywhere else to go where she would be given a platform to broadcast her message.

1491. Why do we believe in God? 2m study prays for answer

Comment #130827 by Bonzai on February 21, 2008 at 10:56 am

Do you also dismiss Daniel Dennett?

I have only read one book by Dannett, it was "Darwin's dangerous idea". I am not particularly impressed. I found the book very verbose, repetitive and never got to the point. He made one clumsy "everyday" analogy after another just in order to convey a simple point, but never got to the biology, it was as if he was afraid that the readers were too stupid so he had to be extra gentle with them. The book kind of went on and on but always beating around the bush, so to speak, It is very frustrating to read if you hope to learn some key ideas of evolution from it, I felt I was drowned in a torrent of words and bad analogies without knowing where it was all heading. For a relatively thick book it contained remarkably little of substance that one can chew on. Dawkins does a much better job in explaining evolution to the non biologists. "The blind watch maker" is a real treat.To be fair though, DDI may not be one of Dannett's best. (I read from others on this site that Danett's debating style is kind of like that too, verbose and meandering. Though I have never heard his debates myself)

One thing in Dannett's book stood out in my mind. It was his contention that real science was like a crane rather than a skyhook (yet another analogy) He must have felt pretty clever for inventing this analogy because it has been used again and again by him and other people since. He was probably correct regarding biology, but biology is not the only science. I don't think that is true for physics.The greatest works in theoretical physics do often convey the impression of skyhooks. Giants of physics such as Newton, Boltzmann, Einstein and Dirac were all master skyhook builders. What is general relativity if not a glorious skyhook? Einstein had no data when he worked it all out, the data caught up with him much later.

Not to be too negative about philosophers, I read Philip Kitcher's " Abusing Science" as an undergraduate. In it Kitcher made a direct assault on creationism.The book contained a short introduction to evolutionary theory, a sketch of the scientific method, a point by point rebuttal against creationism and some background information of the creationism movement. It was well written, lucid, tightly organized and ideas flew naturally and smoothly, quite the opposite to Dannett's book (DDI).

1492. Why do we believe in God? 2m study prays for answer

Comment #130729 by Bonzai on February 21, 2008 at 7:51 am

First you're completely misrepresenting what I said (first response), then you just go on and on and on insulting the discipline I study while you have obviously not a clue about it,

I think you give me enough information already.

, you make ridiculous dogmatic claims about the nature of theories (in this case you are making a hopeless attempt at philosophy of science yourself, namely metatheory)

How is it ridiculous? I am skeptical of people who claim to know "the nature" of theory in general while obviously don't even understand the most elementary content of the theories (math and physics in this case) they are supposed to deliberate on. On what ground do you make your proclamations?

and finally you actually manage to repost your most stupid (I'm sorry, I cannot be kind about this) statement of all. "So? does it yield any new and interesting physics" - like accusing a geologist that his discipline is bullshit because it doesn't form rocks.

Geologists may not make rocks, but they do make more than hot air.

You tell us you build metatheoretical models, but the practitioners of the "theory" can hardly recognize their own disciplines in your rendition. It is like a cartographer making a map for a village while the villagers themselves cannot even recognize it and all he tells them is, "but, look at the details, they are well drawn and the colour is beautiful" I think a real geologist or a neuroscientist would not be able to get away like that. So your comparisons were inaccurate.

OK, it may be unfair to ask you to produce physics result, But neither did you shed much light on physics other than making some inane complaints about "problems" in physics which are not problems at all except for the fact that they don't fit into your schema.


You then raved about Ramseyfication, which as far as I can tell can be applied to any formal system. So exactly what does this tell us specifically about physics? That you can replace all of particle mechanics (to the extent your formal system can capture) with one super long, incomprehensible sentence?

I may be missing a gene somewhere but I really can't get excited about that.

How does that tell us about the nature of physical laws? How does that have anything to do with the justification or rejection of physical realism, for examples?

if it gives you a false sense of victory in denying the validity of the scientific research and construction of valid theories that is going on in philosophy of science.

In what way are you guys engaging in scientific research and by what criteria do you judge your theories as "valid"?

1493. Why do we believe in God? 2m study prays for answer

Comment #130700 by Bonzai on February 21, 2008 at 7:12 am

Steve,

I feel that if we suggest that mathematics and physics are one, then we open up the possibilify of someone claiming that mathematics somehow arises only out of the physical world, and hence that it could in some sense be part of "creation".

I see your point. But I think he was also enjoying a bit of rhetorics and you can see, you shouldn't take it too literally.

I have seen the man in action, he has a taste for drama. In a seminar he came in, drew a big circle on the blackboard and said, "this is the brain, the left side does geometry, physics and all useful things, the right side does algebra," He then draw a big line in the middle and said, "the two sides don't connect!"

1494. Why do we believe in God? 2m study prays for answer

Comment #130686 by Bonzai on February 21, 2008 at 6:48 am

Oh, the "confusing form with substance" thing again, the magical mystery of living, breathing mathematics and physics. No argument in this, sorry. It doesn't appeal and fails to account for the beauty of the living thing - I have reason to assume that you are scientifically minded, but I'm sorry to say this reminds me of anti-scientific propaganda.

Well speaking of cheap shot. Einstein, Feynman and Dawkins all use words like mystery and beauty in describing science, Are they now all promoting anti-science propaganda?

So, mathematics is dynamic and changing and beautiful - I agree wholeheartedly, but to say that studying what theories are for empirical sciences in a formal way "fails to capture the rich texture" and is thus "missing the point" is just like saying that botany is missing the point because it fails to capture how beautifully the flowers sway in the soft breeze.

Wrong analogy.

Your approach is like studying a great fiction by analyzing its sentence and paragraph arrangement and counting the occurrence of words while completely oblivious to the plot, the character development and stylistic innovations.

Not only that, you insist that this is the only legitimate way of approaching the novel because all books are texts,--collections of words laid out in a certain way. "What else is there? It is technically true but only a typographer who doesn't know any literature would find that to be the most remarkable attribute of the fiction.

The point of the section from stanford was the problem of theoretical terms - which is a real problem..

It is a problem only because you insist on casting physics into a formal system on which you can play your logical games. There is no problem whatsoever for anyone who actually understands the physics.

You are like someone complaining that his feet are too big because they don't fit into his shoes. Does it occur to you that maybe your shoes are too small?

To which you proposed an answer - which I found to be missing the point. There are scientific research programs, and schemata (methods) of investigation, but a proposed law is no such thing.

I didn't "propose an answer". This is the standard explanation of Newton's second law. Go to your university library and check out, for example, Haliday and Rensnick's first year physics text book where you can find a very careful discussion adorned with nice pictures. It is hardly anything cutting edge or controversial.

You think there is a problem only because you are too hung up on semantics,--not that surprising as the philosopher's only tool is words.It may be called a "law" but it is actually a scheme or a "program", if you don't like it just change the word "law". "Problem" solved

Arnold's case - even if he doesn't say so explicitly, and even tries to obscure it, is one of definition, of description, of semantic conventions (which becomes entirely obvious when we talks of matrices and "axioms" vs "properties").

Wow, now you actually accuse one of the greatest living mathematician not knowing his definitions, it is quite something.

Whether it is "definition", "description" or "properties" he publishes hundreds of papers on the best mathematical journals and no one finds that it is a problem. That way of presenting mathematics is completely acceptable. The kind of horrendous formal system you play with doesn't correspond to real mathematics. It is the philosopher's distorted image. Sorry if we don't live up to the philosophers' standard of rigor in the way we describe things.

You dislike the term "axiom", and talking of axiomatization and so forth. That's your prerogative, but it is irrelevant. That fact is that the modus operandi you dislike is succesful and therefore appropriate.

It has nothing to do with dislike.

No one writes his or her papers starting with axioms and deduces every consequence using first order logic. Axioms are just conventions used for summarizing certain facts and establishing common grounds, Unless you work in areas like set theory or mathematical logic you rarely have to care about foundational axioms. Real mathematics is more flexible than your lousy model, get over it.

Theories in physics do include observational terms, theoretic terms and underlying conversion rules. You can't get around that - and I supposes you see no need to. But from this, problems arise - such as the problem of t-theoretical terms. There was no false definition, none that missed the point, for reasons already stated.

There is no problem if you understand the physics as I said before. "Problems" only arise when you insist on fitting physics into your artificial and rigid scheme. The division into these terms are only approximate and I truly don't see what purpose it serves. What is potential energy? Into which category does it fall? In classical mechanics it is defined in terms of conservative force, in QM it is taken as primary while force is defined as the negative gradient of the potential. How about em field? This apparent confusion in assigning logical roles in "T" doesn't arise in physics because it is completely irrelevant. If it is a problem in philosophy because of the peculiar and pedantic way you set things up it is not physics' problem and physicists shouldn't loose sleep over it (and they won't)

Ramseyfication consists in the replacement of the theoretical terms of a finitely axiomatized theory by bound higher-order variables. This involves combining all the theoretical postulates (which define theoretical terms) and correspondence rules of a theory (which link some of these theoretical terms with observational ones) in one long sentence and then replacing all the theoretical predicates that occur in it by bound higher-order variables. This is the so-called Ramsey-sentence of the entire theory; in it no theoretical terms appear, but it possesses the same explanatory and predictive power as the original theory: it has the same observational consequences.

So? You can play that game with any formal system apparently.What does it have to do with physics? Does it yield any new and interesting physics?

I would be more impressed if you guys are able to produce some real results rather than just playing games with formal strings. From your description basically you started with a system which probably doesn't capture too much physics in the first place, and then come up with an equivalent(?) one by incorporating some formally cooked up, horrendously long "sentence" using some "high order" variables.I am sorry that I can't really see the excitement in that.

Now formal games sometimes can be useful. Model theorists do get some important results in real algebraic geometry by fooling around with quantifiers and projections. But their focus is much more narrow (not to axiomatize all of mathematics or anything like that )

Furthermore, there is no confusing of form with substance, as it's not about what the theories model (their substance), but about what theories are (their form) - there's no confusion. Your objection is like saying that a neuroscientist studying how the brain represents the world is missing the point because he is not investigating what the brain models.

I am saying that you don't even get the form right as far as physics is concerned. For mathematics it is easier to get the form, but

1) that has been done ever since Godel and before so it is nothing new. This is standard fare in mathematical logic (to quote Yuri Manin, --a branch of mathematics where it contemplates upon its own caricature, something like that)

2) Even if you find anything interesting about your model it doesn't have to have anything to do with real mathematics and even knowing some properties of mathematics as a formal system you still can't say anything "philosophical" about it (what is mathematical truth etc) as you originally claim. I maybe wrong, but fooling around with formal systems is usually considered a branch of mathematical logic (or symbolic logic for philosophers), not philosophy of science. I think of people like Ian Hacking or Popper when I hear philosophy of science.

1495. Why do we believe in God? 2m study prays for answer

Comment #130635 by Bonzai on February 21, 2008 at 3:50 am

Mphil,


About the Standford link.


The author is correct that F=Ma is circular if you view it as a single statement. But to see it like that is missing the point.

Newton's second law is not a single empirical statement, but rather a "schema" or a program, I use these words loosely, I don't know what is the term you philosophers use.

The key idea is that F is a function only of position and (perhaps) velocity (and time). The assertion of the second law is that it is always possible to find such a function (a force law) so that the particle's acceleration is completely determined by its current position (where it is) and its velocity(how fast and in which direction it is moving) according to F = MA, where the factor M is the same for the same particle no matter where you put it (regardless of force law) and how fast the particle moves (this is not true in relativity where the mass grows with speed)

This is highly non trivial, mathematically, what it means is that the zeroth and first derivatives of position with respect to time completely determine the trajectory (position as a function of time),

Of course we cannot empirically test all possible environments where we may place our particle but we accept it as a "law" because (with usual assumption of non relativistic and non quantum mechanical motions) in most physical situations we can indeed find such a F so that F = MA.(we can also derive Newton's second law from Hamiltonian or Lagrangian mechanics as a theorem, in that case a similar statement would be the assertion that it is always possible to define a Lagrangian or a Hamiltonian so that the least action principle holds)

The author's way to resolve the "problem" was completely wrong. The equality (or proportionality) of inertial and gravitational mass cannot be just "assumed",--which (s)he alluded to in the following paragraph. It is the equivalence principle in Einstein's general relativity. There is no a priori reason why this should be the case (this amounts to say that all particles in free fall under the same "gravitational field" map out the same trajectories in spacetime)

The author was correct that "Similar problems arise in the formulation of almost all fundamental physical theories" But the "problems" only arise because (s)he looks at physical laws just as stand alone propositions in some formal system. All these "problems" can be "resolved" in the same way as Newton's second law.

For example you may find the same "problem" in conservation of energy in its elementary formulation (it can be derived from symmetry in Lagrangian or Hamiltonian mechanics) and field theory.

The truly remarkable point is not whether something is "real" or just book keeping or how it fits into some logical scheme of definitions, but that it is possible at all to device "book keeping schemes" that the whole thing is self consistent.

For example, electromagnetic field is introduced as a mathematical device to avoid "action at a distance", but what is not trivial is that you can actually do your "book keeping" by assigning "missing" momenta, angular momenta and energy to the field in such a way that they are completely recoverable so that momentum, angular momentum and energy conservation still hold. This reveals something new about nature that we didn't know before because there is no purely logical reason why this can be done at all For me this is the true mystery (well actually they can be derived as theorems from symmetry in the Lagragian and Hamiltonian formulations of field theory, but it is a mystery if you only know the elementary treatment and that is what you should find amazing)

It turns out that instead of defining fields through force and test particle, it is much more natural in advanced physics to start with fields and describe them by the appropriate field equations, completely by passing the force and test particle set up.

So is em field "real" or just a mathematical fiction? How does it fit in our scheme of definition? Is it a derived concept or a primitive one? These are futile questions as far as I am concerned and quite uninteresting. To nitpick over these is confusing the map with the landscape.

Physics is not an axiomatic system, It is not just a collection of "propositions". It is an organic, expanding body of knowledge. Even if it is possible,--it is, though perhaps not in the way that a philosopher would go about it,-- I really don't see the point of turning classical mechanics into some dead, rigid formal system. Even classical mechanics is not a dead subject, it,--in the Lagrangian or Hamiltonian formulations,-- continues to make contact with other branches of physics such as quantum mechanics, relativity, field theory and even string theory.

On another point.

Boubarki's vision of mathematics is a very sterile one, it fails to capture the rich texture of mathematics as it is actually done.

That is a central point of Arnold's criticism.

When mathematics is presented like that, aspiring mathematicians without the deep insights and encyclopedic knowledge of the Boubarki masters would be lost in a maze of inessential formal details and lose sight of what is truly important.

The casual philosophic observer would be similarly misled by this way of presenting mathematics as merely a deductive system of structures and propositions.

The Soviet school sees mathematics as a fluid and open ended subject which has rich interface with the natural sciences, not something that can be neatly cordoned off and casted into some "structural theory". In particular there is no strict demarcation between mathematics and physics.

Mathematics in the Soviet tradition is messy but full of vitality and energy. To use Nietzsche's terminology, the unsuspecting outsider often only sees the Apollolian face of mathematics, but there is actually also a Dyonesian side to it and it finds its most powerful expression in the Russian school.

Arnold expressed his ideas beautifully and passionately in http://pauli.uni-muenster.de/~munsteg/arnold.html

Aside from lambasting the Boubarki approach he also argued eloquently for what I would call "the poverty of axioms".

Boubarki styled "structuralism" which lopsidedly highlights abstraction, formalism, axiomatics and the deductive link between propositions appeal to philosophers because it is so clean. But I agree with Arnold that this is not a true representation of living mathematics, Any attempt to reduce mathematics to some formal schemes is necessarily missing the point, confusing form with substance.


To others,

My apologies for dragging this on, but it is difficult to stop when you feel you do have something that needs to be said.

1496. Why do we believe in God? 2m study prays for answer

Comment #130561 by Bonzai on February 20, 2008 at 9:15 pm

It's not about absolutes. What you don't seem to understand is that we can study that. We can actually form well-founded theories on whether scientific realism is true or not. A private opinion is not 'just as good' if it isn't as rigorously investigated.

You can of course create and study any model for science, some models may be more interesting than the others, but that is a field completely unto itself, it doesn't mean that it has any relation to real science.

Some of the most interesting work in studying formal systems actually fall under mathematics, not philosophy (logic, some aspects of set theory, model theory, computation theory)

By interesting I mean yielding non trivial theorems. The activities of philosophers are primarily in constructing elaborate systems, mostly with words, sometimes with symbols as well. There are papers published in philosophical journals of a more mathematical nature, but according to my set theorist colleagues who keep track on these things they are at least thirty years out of date comparing to what you find in the mathematical journals.

They would be pragmatically able to do it, but provide a scientific justification? What I was saying was - if they do, as soon as they talk talk about demarcation criteria, they are doing philosophy of science.

By my definition philosophy of science arises when scientists reflect on their own fields of research. It is not a separate, disembodied discipline divorced from science as it is actually done if it is to have anything of substance to say about actual science.

I should have said "What about the actual trustworthiness and explanatory power of induction and deduction - another question of philosophy

Same answer as above. I trust that any working scientist would consider this distinction to be quite elementary and wouldn't need to study philosophy of science to figure that out.

Btw, ever heard of the Bourbaki program for mathematics?

Well the Bourbaki program was not about metamathematics. While the collective's views on foundational issues certainly affected their presentation, their books are mathematics books written for mathematicians, not books written about mathematics from the "outside" like Bertrand Russell's. Also, all members of the Boubaki collective were top notch mathematicians, they were not generalists making observations on the sideline (now one of them, Rene' Thom, later did quit mathematics and became a philosopher, perhaps you can take comfort in that)

In any case not everyone is impressed by the Boubarki school.The great Russian mathematician V.I. Arnold, my mathematical hero, has some very scathing things to say about its hyperabstract mathematical style and its insistence on communicating mathematics at the highest level of generality. Arnold said its fixation on formality and generality sapped mathematics of its vitality. He said, perhaps with a little exaggeration, that the Boubarki movement has single handedly destroyed French mathematics. I am definitely not a fan of Boubarki styled mathematics.

EDIT: Incidentally, you may be able to sense from the above that the Boubarki school and Arnold's Moscow school have very different answers to the question "What is mathematics?". I don't believe philosophers of science who are completely divorced from actual mathematical research can tell us what it is.

1497. Why do we believe in God? 2m study prays for answer

Comment #130550 by Bonzai on February 20, 2008 at 8:20 pm

What reason is there for assuming scientific realism?

This is just a working hypothesis.

You see, philosophers want absolutes. Science doesn't give you absolutes. Such questions can never be answered definitively. The reflective scientist would have a private opinion and it is just as good the philosopher's, even though he may not be able to buttress it with big words and citations.

Demarcation criteria between science and pseudoscience for example - a metalevel question which empirical science itself cannot answer, it's a topic of Philosophy of Science and everytime a scientist says something about it - he's doing Philosophy of Science. And mostly just taking things for granted

You think scientific community wouldn't be able to ferret out pseudo science without asking the philosopher? Gimme a break.

How about induction versus deduction?

And what about it? Is this a trick question?

How about commensurability or incommensurability of scientific paradigms? How about the Ramseyfication of empirical claims? T-Theoreticity and set theoretic predicates?

More big words. They may be interesting models that fall within the realm of mathematical logic, but these things are just models and they take on their own lives.

It's mathematical logic including set theory applied to provide a metatheory and foundation of empirical theories.

Again confusing models (formal systems) with what they are intended to model.

Even in most areas of mathematics the sophisticated results of set theory are not particularly relevant. The role of set theory is actually quite mundane for the most part even in mathematics, namely it basically provides convenient symbols and a vocabulary.

The fact that you can construct the natural numbers from the empty set by iterations means absolutely nothing for the number theorists who investigates really interesting properties of natural numbers. The set theoretical construction only tells you that numbers can be coded as sets (rather than numbers "are" sets, the latter is a metaphysical statement about what numbers "really" are) Most number theorists don't think of numbers as sets, I can assure you that.

Mathematicians working on areas other than set theory probably don't need any more set theory than Halmos' "naive set theory",--a first or second year text book. The foundational issues usually don't arise in interesting mathematical problems (which typically are about rather "concrete" objects) and should they arise, they can be easily circumvented (say by being more specific about the kind of objects being discussed)

1498. Why do we believe in God? 2m study prays for answer

Comment #130542 by Bonzai on February 20, 2008 at 7:55 pm

MPhil,

So, providing a theoretical, formal logic foundation for empirical sciences is worthless?

Let me know when you succeed.

Science in practice is fluid and organic. What arm chair experts such as those people you worship do is to take a snapshot, make an observation which has a kernel of truth,--usually rather unremarkable for the scientists,--and spin them into some overarching "systems" of "-isms". Science has never been helped by such "-isms" and they provide only bad caricatures of what science is.

This has been the case ever since Francis Bacon ( he was basically a journalist reporting what scientist did and not a very accurate reporter at that, but falsely credited by philosophers as the inventor of the scientific method as if scientists were learning their trades from him), then the positivists, empiricists and whatever -ists that you may care to name. Science is always too rich to be captured by these petty -isms.

Just goes to show that you're incredibly ignorant and arrogant. It's not about 'making a direct contribution', but about metalevel explanation and actually putting empirical sciences on a theoretic groundwork that is logically and epistemologically sufficient

I know. I am saying that you can't do that.

You can write long winded books full of fancy words and symbols for other philosophers to admire but the working scientists cannot even recognize that this is a depiction of science. What makes you think that the generalists are even qualified to construct a "metatheory" if they don't even know exactly what the "theory" is? That I call "arrogant and ignorant". This reminds me of our exchange on mathematics, your characterization of mathematics completely misses the point, typical of someone who get the idea from nth hand accounts by philosophers..

You can make a "scholarship" out of anything, it doesn't mean that it has any real intellectual depth or worthiness.

1499. Why do we believe in God? 2m study prays for answer

Comment #130536 by Bonzai on February 20, 2008 at 7:39 pm

al-rawandi,

Are you making a general attack on philosophy, or the more specific field of Philosophy of Science?

Just philosophy of science because it is a parasitic activity.

Metaphysics is quite useless too IMO.

1500. Why do we believe in God? 2m study prays for answer

Comment #130531 by Bonzai on February 20, 2008 at 7:22 pm

". Just go to a university library, see if they have Joseph Sneed's "The logical structure of mathematical physics" and try to read and understand it. It's not a philosophical caricature,, it's an attempt to provide a theoretical foundation for theories in empirical sciences in general, and mathematical physics specifically.

Thanks but no thanks, I get better things to do than to waste my times with arm chair philosophers and their verbal diarrhea.

EDIT:
It strikes me as incredibly arrogant for some generalists, remote from any actual scientific research to claim that they have ways to work out the general foundation,--note the big word,-- of all empirical sciences and mathematical sciences. This is a sure sign of the highest order of crackpotism. They usually quickly drift off to some formal or verbal masturbatory tangents. I was just listening to one such guy on the radio and he was so full of shit that I have to turn it off.

The contribution of philosophy of science to real science = 0, maybe negative if you take into account the distractions.