[TV] Cosmos (2014)

Everything else!

Moderators: Bakhtosh, EvilHomer3k

User avatar
Paingod
Posts: 13132
Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2010 8:58 am

Re: [TV] Cosmos (2014)

Post by Paingod »

Grifman wrote:But that's not the entirely of the field of philosophical inquiry, not even close. Yet Tyson dismisses it all. See my post above.
Perhaps anything that actually crosses from philosophy into science becomes science and stops being philosophy? We won't get him here to answer, but I doubt he'd throw away a good scientific observation derived from science performed by a philosopher. He'd probably simply expect that it took the philosopher exponentially longer to arrive at the conclusion as he inspected all the "why's" along the way.
Black Lives Matter

2021-01-20: The first good night's sleep I had in 4 years.
User avatar
LordMortis
Posts: 70101
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:26 pm

Re: [TV] Cosmos (2014)

Post by LordMortis »

Paingod wrote:Perhaps anything that actually crosses from philosophy into science becomes science and stops being philosophy? We won't get him here to answer, but I doubt he'd throw away a good scientific observation derived from science performed by a philosopher. He'd probably simply expect that it took the philosopher exponentially longer to arrive at the conclusion as he inspected all the "why's" along the way.
I take NDT's statement to be much bigger than this. He seems to be saying philosophy had its place. Then the physical sciences took over. Now all of philosophy is useless because it no longer advances the physical sciences.
User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 82094
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Chookity pok
Contact:

Re: [TV] Cosmos (2014)

Post by Isgrimnur »

Grifman wrote:It's as if you didn't read the second article.
It is, isn't it.

The specialization of scientists into one or two fields is a relatively recent phenomenon. Newton wrote extensively on religion and alchemy. Most of the giants on whose shoulders the next generation stands were polymaths.
The main objective of philosophy of science is to understand how science works and, when it fails to work (which it does, occasionally), why this was the case. It is epistemology applied to the scientific enterprise.
How science works is a scientific question. Why does the question, when it doesn't, shift from How to Why? I want scientists focused on things like epidemiology rather than epistemology.

From the epistemology page:
Epistemologists argue over whether belief is the proper truth-bearer. Some would rather describe knowledge as a system of justified true propositions, and others as a system of justified true sentences.
...
Gettier argued that there are situations in which one's belief may be justified and true, yet fail to count as knowledge.
And philosophy of science
Philosophy of science is a branch of philosophy concerned with the foundations, methods, and implications of science. The central questions concern what counts as science, the reliability of scientific theories, and the purpose of science. This discipline overlaps with metaphysics, ontology and epistemology, for example, when it explores the relationship between science and truth.
How does this sort of mental exercise further scientific discovery or application? I'm not saying that those that have furthered the philosophy of science haven't had an impact, but at the core definitions, they add nothing to the knowledge base of scientific inquiry by wasting time debating what is science and what is knowledge.
It's almost as if people are the problem.
User avatar
RunningMn9
Posts: 24461
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:55 pm
Location: The Sword Coast
Contact:

Re: [TV] Cosmos (2014)

Post by RunningMn9 »

This is why most people hate philosophers.
And in banks across the world
Christians, Moslems, Hindus, Jews
And every other race, creed, colour, tint or hue
Get down on their knees and pray
The raccoon and the groundhog neatly
Make up bags of change
But the monkey in the corner
Well he's slowly drifting out of range
User avatar
msteelers
Posts: 7157
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 9:30 pm
Location: Port Saint Lucie, Florida
Contact:

Re: [TV] Cosmos (2014)

Post by msteelers »

Wouldn't the scientific method remove the need for philosophy of science?

My experiment failed. "Why did it fail?" I ask. After doing some more research, I come up with a hypothesis as to why my experiment failed. I test to see if my hypothesis is right. I analyze the data, and by George I got it! Release a paper, and watch the monies and the ladiez throw themselves at me.

That's how the scientific method works, right?
User avatar
Grifman
Posts: 21196
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 7:17 pm

Re: [TV] Cosmos (2014)

Post by Grifman »

Paingod wrote:To him, as Isgrimnur says, the "How" is what matters and not the "Why" - and it makes perfect sense for a scientist to feel that way.
That's not even the correct way of phrasing things. You don't believe that if I ask why Jupiter has a giant red spot that there's not a scientific explanation for that? You're already getting into philosophical issues by trying to define science and how it works.
Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions. – G.K. Chesterton
User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 82094
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Chookity pok
Contact:

Re: [TV] Cosmos (2014)

Post by Isgrimnur »

Word definitions do matter. I made the distinction earlier that these were my own opinions regarding How vs. Why

And for many people, asking Why on a scientific question is perfectly legitimate, but the answers are more of a How.

Why does Jupiter have a red spot? To me, that is a question of purpose and motivation. It lends itself to more of a personification or creationist argument. The storm is there because it, the planet, or some other power wants it to be.

How did it come to be, how does it work, how has it lasted this long, what processes sustain it? These, again, to me, are the more scientific versions of the question.
It's almost as if people are the problem.
User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 82094
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Chookity pok
Contact:

Re: [TV] Cosmos (2014)

Post by Isgrimnur »

And how is it shrinking?
It's almost as if people are the problem.
User avatar
LordMortis
Posts: 70101
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:26 pm

Re: [TV] Cosmos (2014)

Post by LordMortis »

Isgrimnur wrote:Why does Jupiter have a red spot? To me, that is a question of purpose and motivation. It lends itself to more of a personification or creationist argument. The storm is there because it, the planet, or some other power wants it to be.
Weird. I don't carry anothromorphism baggage into Why? Why asks for a cause. Where Why fails scientifically is that it's a vague open ended question.

Why does Jupiter have a red spot?

Because the spectrum is reelecting and absorbing in such a way that you only see that much of the band.

Fuck you.
User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 82094
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Chookity pok
Contact:

Re: [TV] Cosmos (2014)

Post by Isgrimnur »

LordMortis wrote:Fuck you.
Image
It's almost as if people are the problem.
User avatar
Grifman
Posts: 21196
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 7:17 pm

Re: [TV] Cosmos (2014)

Post by Grifman »

Isgrimnur wrote:The specialization of scientists into one or two fields is a relatively recent phenomenon. Newton wrote extensively on religion and alchemy. Most of the giants on whose shoulders the next generation stands were polymaths.
Yep, totally agree.
How science works is a scientific question.
And which branch of science tells you this? And which branch of science tells you how science works? :)
I want scientists focused on things like epidemiology rather than epistemology.
Who says they shouldn't? But saying scientists should focus on epidemiology is not the same as saying the philosophical inquiries into the nature of science are worthless. One does not logically follow the other, so I'm not sure what you are arguing here.
Philosophy of science is a branch of philosophy concerned with the foundations, methods, and implications of science. The central questions concern what counts as science, the reliability of scientific theories, and the purpose of science. This discipline overlaps with metaphysics, ontology and epistemology, for example, when it explores the relationship between science and truth.
How does this sort of mental exercise further scientific discovery or application?
You don't think being able to define what you are doing is important? You don't think understanding the reliability of science is important? (After all, if I don't think it's reliable, why should I listen to you? - see Republicans and global warming as a real life example :) ). You don't think understanding failures in science is important? Isn't understanding the process of science important?
I'm not saying that those that have furthered the philosophy of science haven't had an impact, but at the core definitions, they add nothing to the knowledge base of scientific inquiry by wasting time debating what is science and what is knowledge.
Knowledge is great but if you can't get the public to accept it (global warming) because they don't trust the reliability of science or understand how it works (which you see a lot in many of the arguments against global warming), then you have a problem that pure science cannot solve.
Last edited by Grifman on Thu May 15, 2014 2:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions. – G.K. Chesterton
User avatar
LordMortis
Posts: 70101
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:26 pm

Re: [TV] Cosmos (2014)

Post by LordMortis »

Isgrimnur wrote:
LordMortis wrote:Fuck you.
Image
That is Fuck You is directed at the answers to Why that don't seem to say much of anything.
User avatar
Grifman
Posts: 21196
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 7:17 pm

Re: [TV] Cosmos (2014)

Post by Grifman »

msteelers wrote:Wouldn't the scientific method remove the need for philosophy of science?

My experiment failed. "Why did it fail?" I ask. After doing some more research, I come up with a hypothesis as to why my experiment failed. I test to see if my hypothesis is right. I analyze the data, and by George I got it! Release a paper, and watch the monies and the ladiez throw themselves at me.

That's how the scientific method works, right?
Can you recreate the Big Bang to test the theory? Can you recreate the evolution of the dinosaurs to test that? Scientific method does not equal "science". Again, how do you define science?
Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions. – G.K. Chesterton
User avatar
Grifman
Posts: 21196
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 7:17 pm

Re: [TV] Cosmos (2014)

Post by Grifman »

LordMortis wrote:
Isgrimnur wrote:
LordMortis wrote:Fuck you.
Image
That is Fuck You is directed at the answers to Why that don't seem to say much of anything.
The "Fuck You" didn't seem to say much of anything :lol: :lol: :lol:
Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions. – G.K. Chesterton
User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 82094
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Chookity pok
Contact:

Re: [TV] Cosmos (2014)

Post by Isgrimnur »

Thank you for the clarification.
Grifman wrote:You don't think being able to define what you are doing is important? You don't think understanding the reliability of science is important? (After all, if I don' think it's reliable, why should I listen to you? - see Republicans and global warming as a real life example ). You don't think understanding failures in science is important? Isn't understanding the process of science important?
I absolutely think that these things are important. But I believe them to be best determined by the interactions of scientists and the public when funded by the public. The scientific community builds a consensus over what is acceptable science. Arguing whether something counts as science as a philosophical exercise is not the same as measuring it against confidence intervals, etc. Measuring the reliability of scientific hypotheses (not theories, we've already had that argument in another thread) is a scientific pursuit. Philosophizing about it doesn't address the causes of why it's only 75% reliable. Further scientific inquiry and experiments do. And "exploring the relationship between science and truth" is irrelevant.

At the end of the day, the answers to most of these questions are decided on by the practitioners of the science and those funding it. When the government funds it, the argument becomes broader, and more evidently political. Having a philosopher weigh in on whether DNA sampling of bears is "sciencey" enough or leads to a greater "truth" is a waste of time for those funding it and those doing the work.
Grifman wrote:Knowledge is great but if you can't get the public to accept it (global warming) because they don't trust the reliability of science or understand how it works (which you see a lot in many of the arguments against global warming), then you have a problem that pure science cannot solve.
That's as much a education and PR problem as anything else. It's certainly not going to be solved through philosophical inquiry. If anything, it will muddy the waters even more.
It's almost as if people are the problem.
User avatar
noxiousdog
Posts: 24627
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:27 pm
Contact:

Re: [TV] Cosmos (2014)

Post by noxiousdog »

Grifman wrote: Can you recreate the Big Bang to test the theory? Can you recreate the evolution of the dinosaurs to test that? Scientific method does not equal "science". Again, how do you define science?
You don't have to recreate it. You can make predictions about evidence that will be discovered and models that must stand up to future evidence.
Black Lives Matter

"To wield Grond, the mighty hammer of the Federal Government, is to be intoxicated with power beyond what you and I can reckon (though I figure we can ball park it pretty good with computers and maths). Need to tunnel through a mountain? Grond. Kill a mighty ogre? Grond. Hangnail? Grond. Spider? Grond (actually, that's a legit use, moreso than the rest)." - Peacedog
User avatar
Grifman
Posts: 21196
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 7:17 pm

Re: [TV] Cosmos (2014)

Post by Grifman »

noxiousdog wrote:
Grifman wrote: Can you recreate the Big Bang to test the theory? Can you recreate the evolution of the dinosaurs to test that? Scientific method does not equal "science". Again, how do you define science?
You don't have to recreate it. You can make predictions about evidence that will be discovered and models that must stand up to future evidence.
I totally understand that but the prior poster implied experimentation was required. You're making my point for me.
Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions. – G.K. Chesterton
User avatar
noxiousdog
Posts: 24627
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:27 pm
Contact:

Re: [TV] Cosmos (2014)

Post by noxiousdog »

Grifman wrote:
noxiousdog wrote:
Grifman wrote: Can you recreate the Big Bang to test the theory? Can you recreate the evolution of the dinosaurs to test that? Scientific method does not equal "science". Again, how do you define science?
You don't have to recreate it. You can make predictions about evidence that will be discovered and models that must stand up to future evidence.
I totally understand that but the prior poster implied experimentation was required. You're making my point for me.
That IS a type of experimentation.
Black Lives Matter

"To wield Grond, the mighty hammer of the Federal Government, is to be intoxicated with power beyond what you and I can reckon (though I figure we can ball park it pretty good with computers and maths). Need to tunnel through a mountain? Grond. Kill a mighty ogre? Grond. Hangnail? Grond. Spider? Grond (actually, that's a legit use, moreso than the rest)." - Peacedog
User avatar
msteelers
Posts: 7157
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 9:30 pm
Location: Port Saint Lucie, Florida
Contact:

Re: [TV] Cosmos (2014)

Post by msteelers »

Grifman wrote:
msteelers wrote:Wouldn't the scientific method remove the need for philosophy of science?

My experiment failed. "Why did it fail?" I ask. After doing some more research, I come up with a hypothesis as to why my experiment failed. I test to see if my hypothesis is right. I analyze the data, and by George I got it! Release a paper, and watch the monies and the ladiez throw themselves at me.

That's how the scientific method works, right?
Can you recreate the Big Bang to test the theory? Can you recreate the evolution of the dinosaurs to test that? Scientific method does not equal "science". Again, how do you define science?
1) just because I don't know how to test something, doesn't mean it's impossible. Someone some day might find a way to test it. Until that time, it will continue to be a theory.

1a) also, Google tells me the large hadron collider was made in part to test the Big Bang theory. I'll let the smart people jump in on that.

2) Oxford defines science as "The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment". The scientific method might not equal science, but it governs how we observe and experiment and is an integral part.
User avatar
RunningMn9
Posts: 24461
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:55 pm
Location: The Sword Coast
Contact:

Re: [TV] Cosmos (2014)

Post by RunningMn9 »

Grifman's Link wrote:While the early-modern religious persecution certainly can’t be denied, Bruno was killed because he flamboyantly denied basic tenets of the Catholic faith, not because religious authorities were out to suppress all “freedom of thought.”
I don't know why this particular sentence seems so comical to me.
And in banks across the world
Christians, Moslems, Hindus, Jews
And every other race, creed, colour, tint or hue
Get down on their knees and pray
The raccoon and the groundhog neatly
Make up bags of change
But the monkey in the corner
Well he's slowly drifting out of range
User avatar
Brian
Posts: 12553
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 8:51 am
Location: South of Heaven
Contact:

Re: [TV] Cosmos (2014)

Post by Brian »

Holy crap! Neil Tyson was buff and covered in funk back in the day.

Image
"Don't believe everything you read on the internet." - Abraham Lincoln
User avatar
Scuzz
Posts: 10901
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 5:31 pm
Location: The Arm Pit of California

Re: [TV] Cosmos (2014)

Post by Scuzz »

I don't think I had ever heard the theory of interplanetary life being moved around via blown off asteroids. I understand the idea but that is quite a change from what Sagan talked about in the original.
Black Lives Matter
User avatar
Smoove_B
Posts: 54567
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 am
Location: Kaer Morhen

Re: [TV] Cosmos (2014)

Post by Smoove_B »

If we can do it, why can't nature? :wink:
Maybe next year, maybe no go
User avatar
LordMortis
Posts: 70101
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:26 pm

Re: [TV] Cosmos (2014)

Post by LordMortis »

I've wondered for a long time when it would be confirmed that we'd contaminated Mars. Now we're going to have to hurl it into the Sun and get a new one before the contamination spreads. This is why we can't have nice things. Soon, Monsanto will claim that they have patents on all 377 lifeforms and that any other life brought to Mars will need to pay them or risk the wrath of IP legal proceedings.
User avatar
Kraken
Posts: 43690
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:59 pm
Location: The Hub of the Universe
Contact:

Re: [TV] Cosmos (2014)

Post by Kraken »

Scuzz wrote:I don't think I had ever heard the theory of interplanetary life being moved around via blown off asteroids. I understand the idea but that is quite a change from what Sagan talked about in the original.
Variations on panspermia have been around for a long time.
User avatar
Moliere
Posts: 12297
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 10:57 am
Location: Walking through a desert land

Re: [TV] Cosmos (2014)

Post by Moliere »

"The world is suffering more today from the good people who want to mind other men's business than it is from the bad people who are willing to let everybody look after their own individual affairs." - Clarence Darrow
User avatar
Kraken
Posts: 43690
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:59 pm
Location: The Hub of the Universe
Contact:

Re: [TV] Cosmos (2014)

Post by Kraken »

Moliere wrote:Cosmos on weed
I LOL'd. :lol:
User avatar
Anonymous Bosch
Posts: 10512
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 6:09 pm
Location: Northern California [originally from the UK]

Re: [TV] Cosmos (2014)

Post by Anonymous Bosch »

Moliere wrote:Cosmos on weed
I'd be surprised if Carl Sagan's use of marijuana was not a significant element in the creation of the original Cosmos series.
"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." — P. J. O'Rourke
User avatar
Moliere
Posts: 12297
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 10:57 am
Location: Walking through a desert land

Re: [TV] Cosmos (2014)

Post by Moliere »



Sagan's Cosmos available to stream for a limited time.
"The world is suffering more today from the good people who want to mind other men's business than it is from the bad people who are willing to let everybody look after their own individual affairs." - Clarence Darrow
User avatar
Zaxxon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 28118
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:11 am
Location: Surrounded by Mountains

Re: [TV] Cosmos (2014)

Post by Zaxxon »

Time for a thread re-titling!
Post Reply