|
Post by Progenitor A on Jan 27, 2012 19:15:21 GMT 1
The point is that when we do an experiment, it consists of all sorts of assumptions. Yes, our understanding of experiments at the macro level are almost certainly correct, for if not, then there would have to be some fantastic alternative explanation (such as this is all a dream, etc). But when it comes to what is happening at the micro level, the point about not being able to prove or disprove statements becomes very relevant. I agree, but this differs substantially from your original statement I know that you are simply trying to make a point, and you have ;D
|
|
|
Post by mak2 on Jan 27, 2012 19:45:38 GMT 1
Scientific theories are not proved like propositions in logic or mathematical theorems. Bragg may only just have realised this but scientists have know it for a hundred years or more. Ideas are never claimed to be absolutely true. They are always subject to being abandoned or modified if new information is discovered. This does not mean that scientific knowledge is unreliable. If we insisted on being absolutely sure of the facts before we acted, we would seldom do anything. In practice, we rely on information if it is very probably true.
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Jan 27, 2012 20:17:59 GMT 1
Scientific theories are not proved like propositions in logic or mathematical theorems. Bragg may only just have realised this but scientists have know it for a hundred years or more. Ideas are never claimed to be absolutely true. They are always subject to being abandoned or modified if new information is discovered. This does not mean that scientific knowledge is unreliable. If we insisted on being absolutely sure of the facts before we acted, we would seldom do anything. In practice, we rely on information if it is very probably true. I agree with all of this except that it is unfair to Bragg
|
|
|
Post by mak2 on Jan 28, 2012 21:57:59 GMT 1
Maybe I am unfair to Bragg. I must admit that I find him irritating....one of those "experts" whose main skill seems to be in getting on TV too often.
Hawking and Mlodinow's more sophisticated approach, called model-dependent realism, seems closer to current scientific ideas.
Our brains interpret the input from our sensory organs by making a model of the world. When such a model is successful at explaining events, we tend to attribute to it and the concepts that constitute it, the quality of reality. But there may be different models which both accurately predict the same events. One cannot be said to be more real than the other. We are free to use whichever model is most convenient.
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Jan 28, 2012 22:02:40 GMT 1
Maybe I am unfair to Bragg. I must admit that I find him irritating....one of those "experts" whose main skill seems to be in getting on TV too often. Hawking and Mlodinow's approach, called model-dependent realism, seems to reflect current ideas. Our brains interpret the input from our sensory organs by making a model of the world. When such a model is successful at explaining events, we tend to attribute to it and the concepts that constitute it, the quality of reality. But there may be different models which both accurately predict the same events. One cannot be said to be more real than the other. We are free to use whichever model is most convenient. I agree with this too Except for Bragg He hosts some excellent discussions
|
|
|
Post by robinpike on Feb 3, 2012 14:35:08 GMT 1
The point is that when we do an experiment, it consists of all sorts of assumptions. Yes, our understanding of experiments at the macro level are almost certainly correct, for if not, then there would have to be some fantastic alternative explanation (such as this is all a dream, etc). But when it comes to what is happening at the micro level, the point about not being able to prove or disprove statements becomes very relevant. I agree, but this differs substantially from your original statement I know that you are simply trying to make a point, and you have ;D Hi naymissus, There is a fundamental issue at the heart of our ability to make deductions, and it is that we are made of electrons and protons... Take a rock that is sitting in a field – it cannot think or deduce, indeed it has no awareness of the universe at all. Even so, it is affected by the universe, for it can be picked up, dropped, eroded away etc. Now the question is this: thoughts that are going on inside how heads are also a consequence of electrons and protons being impacted by the rest of the universe, just like those in the rock, so how is it that we do have awareness, thought and intelligence? That is a fundamental question: for are our thoughts ‘hard-wired’, or do we have freewill? Indeed, how can this discussion have any meaning at all unless we do have freewill that allows us to come to an informed decision? I suspect the answer to that question is not so much do we have freewill, but more are we able to tell truth from fiction? Evolution naturally gives rise to living things that understand reality correctly (for those that do not will not survive), but that deduction has come from that process – so is circular – and that surely is problem?
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Feb 3, 2012 19:10:42 GMT 1
Hi naymissus, There is a fundamental issue at the heart of our ability to make deductions, and it is that we are made of electrons and protons... Take a rock that is sitting in a field – it cannot think or deduce, indeed it has no awareness of the universe at all. Even so, it is affected by the universe, for it can be picked up, dropped, eroded away etc. Now the question is this: thoughts that are going on inside how heads are also a consequence of electrons and protons being impacted by the rest of the universe, just like those in the rock, so how is it that we do have awareness, thought and intelligence? That is a fundamental question: for are our thoughts ‘hard-wired’, or do we have freewill? Indeed, how can this discussion have any meaning at all unless we do have freewill that allows us to come to an informed decision? I suspect the answer to that question is not so much do we have freewill, but more are we able to tell truth from fiction? Hmm. fact and fiction. I would submit that very few facts are known - we perceive and translate our perceptions into a reality that we call fact. As oerceptions vary so does 'reality'. Admittedly ther is a corpus of knowledge where there is remarkable agreement on what is factual and what is not. But we have no real wy of knowing whether What we know is fact , except on a pragmatic basis. Most scientific fact has, over the years proved to be false. Evolution naturally gives rise to living things that understand reality correctly (for those that do not will not survive), but that deduction has come from that process – so is circular – and that surely is problem? Yes certainlky it is a problem . It is saying (I think ) that those species that become extinct do not somehow 'understand' reality. I find tha problematical
|
|