Timeline for answer to Does the universe not being locally real mean anything for our daily lives? by J D
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
Post Revisions
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 28, 2024 at 3:15 | comment | added | Ian | Let us continue this discussion in chat. | |
| Dec 28, 2024 at 2:25 | comment | added | Ian | I think you’re over valuing the use of philosophy of science books. Because it seems like it just gets in the way of doing it. If not know that it failed hasn’t changed the outcome or course of my life that’s generally a good indication of the use or worth of any of this stuff. What I know is that we perform tests and try to explain the world and things to better predict and manipulate it. To various degrees of success. You seem to lean too much on philosophy to shore up on your misunderstanding of the science. Namely QM. | |
| Dec 28, 2024 at 2:20 | comment | added | J D | I don't mean to insult you, but I think you overestimate your knowledge, and underestimate the value of reading philosophy of science books. | |
| Dec 28, 2024 at 2:19 | comment | added | J D | @ian These are basic facts about the history of the movement. It started in the 30's and by the time of Kuhn, Latour, Hanson, Sellars, Quine and others, it ended for a variety of reason including the failure of observation sentences, underdetermination, theory ladenness, the death of the analytic-synthetic divide, etc. If you're walking around not realizing that LP/LE ended as a failure 65 years ago, I'm not quite sure what you're doing with your time. But if you doubt me, simply ask on this forum about it. I can't read the books for you. Start with googling "why did logical positivism fail?" | |
| Dec 28, 2024 at 2:13 | comment | added | J D | @Ian "Certainly by 1960 a great many philosophers, including many who had earlier clearly been part of the movement, were identifying themselves in opposition to what they took to be logical empiricism. And some members simply changed their minds or pursued different projects. Logical empiricism probably never commanded the assent of the majority of philosophers in either Europe or America, and by 1970 the movement was pretty clearly over—though with lasting influence whether recognized or not." plato.stanford.edu/entries/logical-empiricism | |
| Dec 28, 2024 at 2:13 | comment | added | J D | @Ian I say logical positivism failed because the prominent LP's admitted it failed. If the L&EP's admitted the program failed (in the 60's, btw), why would you, a nobody with little knowledge of it, claim otherwise? We live in a post-positivist world in philosophy of science. See Zamito's press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/N/bo3634623.html | |
| Dec 28, 2024 at 2:06 | comment | added | Ian | Feyerabend isn’t really worth taking seriously on the matter and your first point kinda shows mine about the use of this stuff. If your first instinct is to throw books at me it makes me doubt you understand things. I wouldn’t say logical positivism failed and your misunderstanding of the evidence you cite doesn’t really do your point credit. Like…speak English dude, no one else on here talks like that. 50 books in and you can’t write an answer people understand. All I really know is anti realism is at odds with science and that so far I don’t have reason to doubt science aside from QM, | |
| Dec 27, 2024 at 18:17 | comment | added | J D | If you don't, you haven't really entered the world of philosophy of science yet. There are authors with lots of contrasting views on science: Gross, Feyerabend, Popper, Carnap, Quine, Sellars, McDowell, ad nauseum. Have you read any of their work? I'm not trying to insult you, but the demarcation problem is a very complex issue. And I am absolutely a defender of naturalized epistemology and the scientific methodlogies. I actually promote a weak version of scientism, for instance, insofar as I recognize like Rorty that representationalism is overstated (which would seem ironic to some). | |
| Dec 27, 2024 at 18:14 | comment | added | J D | @ian Whoa. Yeah, okay. So, let's set aside your claims a second. You're very confident in your answers, but I have at least 50 books on the philosophy of science, and worked my way through quite a few of them; I have a particular interest in the failure of logical positivism in particular.So let me ask you to answer a few question for you to gauge your own views? Do you understand Duhem's theme? Do you understand the nature of operationalization as Bridgman describes it? Do you understand Quine's attack on the "Two Dogmas"? Do you understand why natural kinds are controversial? ... | |
| Dec 27, 2024 at 17:45 | comment | added | Ian | @J D People who equate many worlds with a multiverse don’t understand the interpretation. I’m not sure what embodied cognition means but I do know you can’t be an anti realist and in the same vein use science for your views. Also reading back I see you’re the one who wrote that nonsense answer on the ontological implications of this while butchering science to prove your point. | |
| Dec 26, 2024 at 4:01 | comment | added | J D | "The many-worlds interpretation implies that there are many parallel, non-interacting worlds. It is one of a number of multiverse hypotheses in physics and philosophy." It's a type multiverse theory. But I have little interest in philosophy of physics, so all I can say is I affirm one empirically accessible spatial-temporal extension describeable by causality. As for CI, I subscribe to embodied cognition and have some toes on antirealist currents. | |
| Dec 25, 2024 at 22:41 | comment | added | Ian | @J D It's really not. There is some data that does support many worlds currently, but again we don't have anything definitive. But many worlds is not woo, you're thinking Multiverse. Also doesn't copenhagen say that nothing exists unless it's observed as in consciousness? Sounds pretty Wooey. Again just because it's taught in undergrad doesn't mean it's accepted, just well known. | |
| Dec 25, 2024 at 3:02 | comment | added | J D | MWI is woo. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/… | |
| Dec 25, 2024 at 1:22 | comment | added | Ian | That's more or less what I'm getting, that any time something like "reality isn't real" or that anti-realism thread I posted say they're supported by QM I've learned to just roll my eyes at it. That's not what the science means but that won't stop people from making that their case. Though as for the Copenhagen interpretation, I don't think that is the received view it's just the most well known one. Some say Many Worlds is supported by the information but TBH who knows for sure. Researching this stuff is tough. | |
| Dec 24, 2024 at 15:05 | history | answered | J D | CC BY-SA 4.0 |