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.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.
[TV] Cosmos (2014)
Moderators: Bakhtosh, EvilHomer3k
- Paingod
- Posts: 13136
- Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2010 8:58 am
Re: [TV] Cosmos (2014)
Black Lives Matter
2021-01-20: The first good night's sleep I had in 4 years.
2021-01-20: The first good night's sleep I had in 4 years.
- LordMortis
- Posts: 70267
- Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:26 pm
Re: [TV] Cosmos (2014)
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.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.
- Isgrimnur
- Posts: 82405
- Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
- Location: Chookity pok
- Contact:
Re: [TV] Cosmos (2014)
It is, isn't it.Grifman wrote:It's as if you didn't read the second article.
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.
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.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.
From the epistemology page:
And philosophy of scienceEpistemologists 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.
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.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.
It's almost as if people are the problem.
- RunningMn9
- Posts: 24466
- Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:55 pm
- Location: The Sword Coast
- Contact:
Re: [TV] Cosmos (2014)
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
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
- msteelers
- Posts: 7175
- Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 9:30 pm
- Location: Port Saint Lucie, Florida
- Contact:
Re: [TV] Cosmos (2014)
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?
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?
- Grifman
- Posts: 21328
- Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 7:17 pm
Re: [TV] Cosmos (2014)
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.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.
Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions. – G.K. Chesterton
- Isgrimnur
- Posts: 82405
- Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
- Location: Chookity pok
- Contact:
Re: [TV] Cosmos (2014)
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.
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.
- Isgrimnur
- Posts: 82405
- Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
- Location: Chookity pok
- Contact:
- LordMortis
- Posts: 70267
- Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:26 pm
Re: [TV] Cosmos (2014)
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.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.
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.
- Isgrimnur
- Posts: 82405
- Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
- Location: Chookity pok
- Contact:
- Grifman
- Posts: 21328
- Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 7:17 pm
Re: [TV] Cosmos (2014)
Yep, totally agree.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.
And which branch of science tells you this? And which branch of science tells you how science works?How science works is a scientific question.
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.I want scientists focused on things like epidemiology rather than epistemology.
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.
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?How does this sort of mental exercise further scientific discovery or application?
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.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.
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
- LordMortis
- Posts: 70267
- Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:26 pm
Re: [TV] Cosmos (2014)
That is Fuck You is directed at the answers to Why that don't seem to say much of anything.Isgrimnur wrote:LordMortis wrote:Fuck you.
- Grifman
- Posts: 21328
- Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 7:17 pm
Re: [TV] Cosmos (2014)
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?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?
Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions. – G.K. Chesterton
- Grifman
- Posts: 21328
- Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 7:17 pm
Re: [TV] Cosmos (2014)
The "Fuck You" didn't seem to say much of anythingLordMortis wrote:That is Fuck You is directed at the answers to Why that don't seem to say much of anything.Isgrimnur wrote:LordMortis wrote:Fuck you.
Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions. – G.K. Chesterton
- Isgrimnur
- Posts: 82405
- Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
- Location: Chookity pok
- Contact:
Re: [TV] Cosmos (2014)
Thank you for the clarification.
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.
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.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?
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.
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.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.
It's almost as if people are the problem.
- noxiousdog
- Posts: 24627
- Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:27 pm
- Contact:
Re: [TV] Cosmos (2014)
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.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?
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
"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
- Grifman
- Posts: 21328
- Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 7:17 pm
Re: [TV] Cosmos (2014)
I totally understand that but the prior poster implied experimentation was required. You're making my point for me.noxiousdog wrote: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.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?
Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions. – G.K. Chesterton
- noxiousdog
- Posts: 24627
- Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:27 pm
- Contact:
Re: [TV] Cosmos (2014)
That IS a type of experimentation.Grifman wrote:I totally understand that but the prior poster implied experimentation was required. You're making my point for me.noxiousdog wrote: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.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?
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
"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
- msteelers
- Posts: 7175
- Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 9:30 pm
- Location: Port Saint Lucie, Florida
- Contact:
Re: [TV] Cosmos (2014)
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.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?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?
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.
- RunningMn9
- Posts: 24466
- Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:55 pm
- Location: The Sword Coast
- Contact:
Re: [TV] Cosmos (2014)
I don't know why this particular sentence seems so comical to me.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.”
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
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
- Brian
- Posts: 12579
- Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 8:51 am
- Location: South of Heaven
- Contact:
Re: [TV] Cosmos (2014)
Holy crap! Neil Tyson was buff and covered in funk back in the day.
"Don't believe everything you read on the internet." - Abraham Lincoln
- Scuzz
- Posts: 10920
- Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 5:31 pm
- Location: The Arm Pit of California
Re: [TV] Cosmos (2014)
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
- Smoove_B
- Posts: 54757
- Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 am
- Location: Kaer Morhen
- LordMortis
- Posts: 70267
- Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:26 pm
Re: [TV] Cosmos (2014)
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.
- Kraken
- Posts: 43832
- Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:59 pm
- Location: The Hub of the Universe
- Contact:
Re: [TV] Cosmos (2014)
Variations on panspermia have been around for a long time.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.
- Moliere
- Posts: 12380
- Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 10:57 am
- Location: Walking through a desert land
Re: [TV] Cosmos (2014)
"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
- Kraken
- Posts: 43832
- Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:59 pm
- Location: The Hub of the Universe
- Contact:
- Anonymous Bosch
- Posts: 10520
- Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 6:09 pm
- Location: Northern California [originally from the UK]
Re: [TV] Cosmos (2014)
I'd be surprised if Carl Sagan's use of marijuana was not a significant element in the creation of the original Cosmos series.Moliere wrote:Cosmos on weed
"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
- Moliere
- Posts: 12380
- Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 10:57 am
- Location: Walking through a desert land
Re: [TV] Cosmos (2014)
"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
- Zaxxon
- Forum Moderator
- Posts: 28135
- Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:11 am
- Location: Surrounded by Mountains
Re: [TV] Cosmos (2014)
Time for a thread re-titling!