Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: bettybop on 26/01/2008 07:28:05
-
you should read the works of colin leslie dean about the demarcation between science and non science being false and the meaninglessness of mathematics and science
he says
The demarcation of science and non-science is a pseudo problem when we look at what scientists do rather than say we see that they do exactly what the so called non-science do
This work shows that psychoanalysis is a science because phenomenologically they both share similar absurdities. By demonstrating the absurdities of psychoanalysis and science and thus showing they are phenomenologically the same I collapse the distinction between science and non-science. This collapsing of the distinction between science and non-science is an attempt to lend weight to my claim that all classificatory systems will similarly collapse into meaninglessness as the categories which define classificatory systems themselves will collapse into absurdity
This essay is an attempt to destroy this order and introduce chaos by showing, in the case of psychoanalysis and science, the classificatory system of science non-science collapses into meaningless; since phenomenologically psychoanalysis is science. Now what can be done for psychoanalysis i.e. in showing that it is a science this essay claims, while not demonstrating the claims, can be done for all the so called pseudo-sciences such as astrology, alchemy, witchcraft, or religion etc. Similarly it is claimed what can be done for the classificatory system science non-science can be done for all classificatory system with the result that all order all structure is reduced to chaos - meaninglessness
I will show that the coherence and correspondence theories of ‘truth’ are philosophically flawed. I will argue because they are flawed their criteria of ‘truth’ lacks epistemological support; thus making any falsification done under their criteria suspect. I will also show, using examples from science and mathematics, that there are examples in each discipline where falsification of a theory has not led to its abandonment and the theory still plays an important function in all future theory construction
4) Science non science is a false demarcation
http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/books/psychoanalysis/THE_IRRATIONAL_AND_ILLOGICAL_NATURE_OF_SCIENCE_AND_PSYCHOANA.pdf
The irrational and illogical nature of science and psychoanalysis: the demarcation of science and non-science is a pseudo problem; Freud invalidates and transcends the epistemology and enlightenments notions of science: science looses [sic] its position as a privileged and special method of truth
5) the similarities between maths and psychoanalysis
http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/books/psychoanalysis/absurd_in_psych.pdf
The absurdities in psychoanalysis and science that make psychoanalysis a science : reasons sociology, epistemology, ontology and metaphysics why psychoanalysis is a science; meaninglessness
1) mathematics ends in meaninglessness -ie self contradiction paradox
http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/books/philosophy/Absurd_math_science4.pdf
The absurdities or meaninglessness of mathematics and science: paradoxes and contradiction in mathematics and science which makes them meaningless, mathematics and science are examples of mythical thought, case study of the meaninglessness of all views
2)
http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/books/philosophy/irrationality.pdf
Absurdities or meaninglessness or irrationality is no hindrance [sic] to something being 'true' rationality, or, Freedom from contradiction or paradox is not a necessary an/or sufficient condition for 'truth': mathematics and science examples
"Examples from mathematics and science show the theorem: contradiction, or inconsistency within and explanation as well as mutual contradiction, or incommensurability [sic] between explanations does not preclude the explanation or both explanations from being 'true'" p 3
3)
mathematics is in crisis as it uses ad hoc axioms thus indicating it is not based on sound principles
http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/books/philosophy/GODEL5.pdf
GODEL'S INCOMPLETENESS THEOREM. ENDS IN ABSURDITY OR MEANINGLESSNESS GODEL IS A COMPLETE FAILURE AS HE ENDS IN UTTER MEANINGLESSNESS CASE STUDY IN THE MEANINGLESSNESS OF ALL VIEWS
-
Hmmmm.. Again we see the fraudulent nature of the argument. So Freud uses 'pseudo-science' and, ipso facto, all science becomes pseudo-science? What stuff and nonsense.
Science is based upon the evaluation of theory in the form of being disprovable. Science works on the basis of self-criticism, of scepticism and of evaluation of data.
What is Colin Leslie Dean proposing ought to guide our way, out of interest?
-
Science is based upon the evaluation of theory in the form of being disprovable. Science works on the basis of self-criticism, of scepticism and of evaluation of data.
wrong no one seriously questioned Newtonian theory because of the long recognized discrepancies between predictions from the theory
Now science has incidences in its history where a paradigm has not intended to and cannot predict events. A classic example is that Newtonian physics being a casual-deterministic paradigm, could not and cannot not predict the events of black-body radiation –this was left to quantum physics to do. Also Newtonian physic cannot predict the motions of three bodies in combined gravitational motion i.e. planets . Kuhn points out that no one denied that Newtonian physic was not as science because it could not predict the speed of sound, or Newton’s laws of gravitation failed to predict and account for the perigee of the moon or the motion of the moon; as he states “ no one seriously questioned Newtonian theory because of the long recognized discrepancies between predictions from the theory and both the speed the speed of sound and the motion of Mercury.” Now no one would say that because of these inadequacies of Newtonian physics it is not a science. In the same way even if psychoanalysis cannot predict events based on its casual-deterministic assumptions this does not invalidate it as a science just as Newtownian physics casual-deterministic assumptions could not predict events at the atomic level. Newtonian physics is completely unsuccessful at the sub-atomic level and speeds close to the speed of light and cannot be practiced there in both cases yet no one would say it is not a science In this regard there is truth in Freud’s provocative idea, when he states, “ even if psychoanalysis showed itself as unsuccessful in every other form of nervous and psychical disease as it does in delusions, it would still remain completely justified as an irreplacable instrument of scientific research. It is true that in that case we should not be in a position to practise it.”
-
wrong no one seriously questioned Newtonian theory because of the long recognized discrepancies between predictions from the theory
Then how, pray, do we know of it's 'errors'? How do we now know that his theories were not the fullest picture, if not by the process of a greater understanding which must involve a re-thinking of them - a re-evaluation, constant? Same with Einstein's theories. Do you think that Einstein's theories are taken as 'gospel' (if this is the language we are to use)? If so then your ideas of science are unfounded. Re-eevaluation, you see, is an ongoing process.
Only if you see science as an attempt to show mastery of the universes mysteries can such an argument be made. It is, however, merely our best understanding yet. Again, what is it you or even the oh so insightful Dean suggest?
-
Now science has incidences in its history where a paradigm has not intended to and cannot predict events. A classic example is that Newtonian physics being a casual-deterministic paradigm, could not and cannot not predict the events of black-body radiation –this was left to quantum physics to do. Also Newtonian physic cannot predict the motions of three bodies in combined gravitational motion i.e. planets . Kuhn points out that no one denied that Newtonian physic was not as science because it could not predict the speed of sound, or Newton’s laws of gravitation failed to predict and account for the perigee of the moon or the motion of the moon; as he states “ no one seriously questioned Newtonian theory because of the long recognized discrepancies between predictions from the theory and both the speed the speed of sound and the motion of Mercury.” Now no one would say that because of these inadequacies of Newtonian physics it is not a science. In the same way even if psychoanalysis cannot predict events based on its casual-deterministic assumptions this does not invalidate it as a science just as Newtownian physics casual-deterministic assumptions could not predict events at the atomic level. Newtonian physics is completely unsuccessful at the sub-atomic level and speeds close to the speed of light and cannot be practiced there in both cases yet no one would say it is not a science In this regard there is truth in Freud’s provocative idea, when he states, “ even if psychoanalysis showed itself as unsuccessful in every other form of nervous and psychical disease as it does in delusions, it would still remain completely justified as an irreplacable instrument of scientific research. It is true that in that case we should not be in a position to practise it.”
Sophistry again. If someone wishes to undermine science (to what end I am intrigued to understand), shouldn't one do so on a rather more substantial basis than feeble word play?
There is a difference. Newton's laws fundamentally are correct when used in their appropriate context, and one would clearly not attempt to predict the events of black body radiation using them. This is a bit like saying addition is not really mathematical as one could not use it to calculate the value of π.
-
you said
Science is based upon the evaluation of theory in the form of being disprovable. Science works on the basis of self-criticism, of scepticism and of evaluation of data.
and i showed you that is wrong when applied to science
ie no one at the time of newtown would have thrown out the theory because it UNSUCCEFULL in predicting
the speed the speed of sound and the motion of Mercury.”
or
the events of black-body radiation
or
the motions of three bodies in combined gravitational motion i.e. planets
or
account for the perigee of the moon or the motion of the moon;
they just accepted them as true as they worked-even though it was unsucceefull in many areas
same with psychoanalyis
as frued notes
even if psychoanalysis showed itself as unsuccessful in every other form of nervous and psychical disease as it does in delusions, it would still remain completely justified as an irreplacable instrument of scientific research. It is true that in that case we should not be in a position to practise it.
dont listen to what scientists tell us science is
look at what they do -is colin leslie deans message then you will see the demarcation between science and non-science is false
-
I think the difference is that Newtonian mechanics worked very well for just about everything apart from the motion of Mercury (AFAIK, it does just fine for the speed of sound).
The fact that it cannot be solved analytically for the 3 body problem doesn't mean it isn't right- just that the maths isn't up to it.
The models that were used for black body radiation were not bad initiallt (apart from short wavelengths) this problem was known about, and pondering it gave rise to better models in exactly the way science should.
On the other hand I don't believe Freud actually did any true science. I don't think he ever devised a testable hypothesis and then tested it.
Also, while you may not have noticed it, Science (together with technology) has come up with some very useful things- for example this forum.
If you really don't like science plesase feel free to go back to a pre stone-age lifestyle.
-
The fact that it cannot be solved analytically for the 3 body problem doesn't mean it isn't right- just that the maths isn't up to it.
The models that were used for black body radiation were not bad initiallt (apart from short wavelengths) this problem was known about, and pondering it gave rise to better models in exactly the way science should.
but because it was unsuccessful in many areas it still was not abanonded
just as freud notes should apply to psychoanalysis
and pondering it gave rise to better models in exactly the way science should
could be said to stand for the future of psychoanalysis or any other so called non-science
-
You are very fond of Colin Leslie Dean. Who is he and what does he do? Are you Colin Leslie Dean operating under a pseudonym?
Actually, a little bit of googling gave me this, possibly biased, explanation of who he is:
What we know about Colin Leslie Dean is that he is a self-promoting wanna-be poet from Australia who posts queries here on Yahoo Answers (using fictitious profiles) about his own non-celebrity.
Is that accurate?
-
You are very fond of Colin Leslie Dean. Who is he and what does he do? Are you Colin Leslie Dean operating under a pseudonym?
Actually, a little bit of googling gave me this, possibly biased, explanation of who he is:
What we know about Colin Leslie Dean is that he is a self-promoting wanna-be poet from Australia who posts queries here on Yahoo Answers (using fictitious profiles) about his own non-celebrity.
Is that accurate?
There is certainly evidence here that this may be the case.....
I think I see your problem, bettybop. You seem to contend that science is meaningless because it requires an understanding that we deal with ambiguities. We do, it is as simple as that. If one wishes to have secure, immutable truths then one is likely to be sorely undermined.
Science is the requirement for evidence, it is the application of reasoned scepticism (as distinct from cynicism). Nobody of such a mind would claim that Einstein has discovered the secrets of the Universe (he certainly did not), and this whole "idiot myth maker" idea is a construct of a mind ignorant of this - or of one wishing to overlook it.
Science does not pretend to have all the answers. It never will, by it's very nature it cannot. "Myths" are the realm of those who would have us believe that they have all the answers.
Frankly, the weak sophistry, the rambling drivel of some self-acclaimed 'philosopher', whose 'arguments' stand up to not even the most cursory of examinations - put against the works(I emphasise the word) of men which have clearly added to our physical well-being (the very internet, as has been pointed out, that this drivel is spouted upon owes it's existence to these 'myths' - does this internet exist then, or is it, too, mythical??) deserves far less attention than I have spent to type this reply.
-
Just looked up this quote, by American revolutionary Ethan Allen, from Carl Sagan's 'The Demon Haunted World' as I couldn't remember it accurately. It seems, somehow, a fitting response;
Those who invalidate reason ought seriously to consider whether they argue against reason with or without reason; if with reason, then they establish the principle that they are laboring to dethrone: but if they argue without reason (which in order to be consistent with themselves they must do), they are out of reach of rational conviction, nor do they deserve a rational argument.
-
Those who invalidate reason ought seriously to consider whether they argue against reason with or without reason; if with reason, then they establish the principle that they are laboring to dethrone: but if they argue without reason (which in order to be consistent with themselves they must do), they are out of reach of rational conviction, nor do they deserve a rational argument.
pure sophistry
reason shows its own bankuptcy by destroying it self with its own principles
To show that the rational in fact collapses into the irrational. By reason itself all products of human reason reduce to intellectual chaos. To shatter the categories of thought, to rob all views and ideas of any epistemic worth by using reason to show that they end in stultification foolishness, or absurdity. Reason confounds reason and convicts reason by it’s own standard to unintelligibility, babble, stultification, incoherence foolishness and absurdity, or meaninglessness. Reasons critique of reason shows that there is no consistency in any product of reason, no order , no coherence only chaos and absurdity, or meaninglessness. The life-jacket, or anchor reason gives in the void of meaninglessness is broken by reason itself. Into the void of nothing reason drops us. Cut adrift in meaninglessness we are free to acquire other insights other realizations by transcending reason. Meaning can be reduced to absurdity. Meaninglessness can be reduced to absurdity but for those who hold meaninglessness as a view, or meaning there is no hope.
-
Frankly, the weak sophistry, the rambling drivel of some self-acclaimed 'philosopher', whose 'arguments' stand up to not even the most cursory of examinations - put against the works(I emphasise the word) of men which have clearly added to our physical well-being (the very internet, as has been pointed out, that this drivel is spouted upon owes it's existence to these 'myths' - does this internet exist then, or is it, too, mythical??) deserves far less attention than I have spent to type this reply.
you fall for the idiots fallacy in thinking that because it is meaningless or mythical it then cant work
fact is
colin leslie dean shows that things can be mythical and still work
when calculus was first invented it was logically incorrect-mythical - but it worked
“Newton and Leibniz developed the calculus…. Their ideas were attacked for being full of paradoxes.” Newton’s formulation of calculus was self-contradictory yet it worked. Newton worked with small increments going of to a zero limit. Berkeley showed that this leads to logical inconsistency. The main problem Bunch notes was “that a quantity was very close to zero, but not zero, during the first part of the operation then it became zero at the end.” These paradoxes where resolved by the time old expediency of mathematics by defining them away in the nineteenth century by Cauchy and Weierstrass. Up until then calculus was used pragmatically such that “instead of having demonstrations justify results, results were used to justify demonstrations.”
science is mythical ie contradictory but it still works
In regard to the paradoxes and contradictions of quantum theory Wick state the orthodox view when he says “here my opinion of the orthodox quantum mechanics, like Bohr, comes down to the meaning of words. “Classical” and “complementarity”, insult and commendation, are euphemisms; the belief concealed is that Nature has been found in a contradiction. But quantum physicists are not simpletons. In their hearts they know such a claim is philosophically unacceptable and would be rejected in other sciences.”
Wick notes “ I believe orthodox quantum theorists [slates] reason, consciously or unconsciously, something like this. The microscopic world exhibits paradoxes or contradictions and this fact is reflected in the best theory describing it.”
science is myth but it works
thus a mystery as colin leslie dean points
how/why does it work when it is meaninglessness illogical myth
-
there is no epistemological difference between science and non-science
Now Freud shrugged of philosophers’ claims that psychoanalysis cannot be a science because it is absurd may have been correct. Since philosophers and scientist still call those scientific paradigms which are riddled with contradiction and paradox a science. A classic case in philosophy in regard to a philosopher being wrong even though his arguments were logical is Kant’s insistence that space is Euclidean, when in fact it is not but Euclidean but instead Riemann.
In mathematics paradox goes right to the heart of it. In 1930 the mathematician Hilbert began a program to prove that mathematics was consistent. With the discovery of such mathematical paradoxes as the Burli-Forti paradox, Russell’s paradox, Cantor’s paradox and Skolem’s paradox by early 1930’s as Bunch notes, Hilbert’s program did not succeed such that “disagreement about how to eliminate contradictions were replaced by discussions of how to live with contradictions in mathematics." Attempts to avoid the paradoxes led to other paradoxical notions but most mathematicians rejected these notions. Thus the present situation is that mathematics cannot be formulated, except in axiomatic theory, without contradictions without the loss of useful results. With regard to axiomatic theory, this cannot be proven to be consistent with the result that paradoxes can occur at any time. As Bunch states:
“None of them [paradoxes] has been resolved by thinking the way mathematicians thought until the end of the nineteenth century. To get around them requires some reformulation of mathematics. Most reformulations except for axiomatic set theory, results in the loss of mathematical ideas and results that have proven to be extremely useful. Axiomatic set theory explicitly eliminates the known paradoxes, but cannot be shown to be consistent. Therefore, other paradoxes can occur at any time.”
With all these paradoxes and inconsistencies Bunch notes that it is “… amazing that mathematics works so well.” Since the mathematical way of looking at the world generates contradictory results from that of science, such as the mathematical notion of the continuum, and quantum mechanical concept of quanta. As Bunch notes “… the discoveries of quantum theory or the special theory of relativity were all made through extensive use of mathematics that was built on the concept of the continuum…that mathematical way of looking at the world and the scientific way of looking at the world produced contradictory results.”
Now even though relativity physics and quantum mechanics use a method i.e. mathematics which is paradoxical and contradictory no one says that relativity physics and quantum mechanics are not sciences. There is ample evidence of paradox in quantum mechanics just as there is in mathematics. Heisenberg notes that “ the strangest experience of those years was that the paradoxes of quantum theory did not disappear during this process of clarification; on the contrary they have become even more marked and exciting.” Now even though no experiment has contradicted quantum theory predictions and quantum theory is the most successful that has ever existed nevertheless one paradox namely the Einstien-Prodolsky-Rosen paradox may require for its resolution declaring the existing quantum theory, with all its successes wrong. Eberhard notes the solving of some quantum paradoxes is not decided by a method or epistemology but “ [the] ideas [relating] to one’ philosophical view of the world.” Thus from a phenomenological look at how paradox in science is treated it can be seen that if a casual-deterministic psychoanalysis, or a psychoanalysis based upon phantasy are paradoxical and contradictory this does not preclude psychoanalysis from being a science just as it does not preclude mathematics relativity physics and quantum mechanics from being called science
-
Those who invalidate reason ought seriously to consider whether they argue against reason with or without reason; if with reason, then they establish the principle that they are laboring to dethrone: but if they argue without reason (which in order to be consistent with themselves they must do), they are out of reach of rational conviction, nor do they deserve a rational argument.
pure sophistry
reason shows its own bankuptcy by destroying it self with its own principles
To show that the rational in fact collapses into the irrational. By reason itself all products of human reason reduce to intellectual chaos. To shatter the categories of thought, to rob all views and ideas of any epistemic worth by using reason to show that they end in stultification foolishness, or absurdity. Reason confounds reason and convicts reason by it’s own standard to unintelligibility, babble, stultification, incoherence foolishness and absurdity, or meaninglessness. Reasons critique of reason shows that there is no consistency in any product of reason, no order , no coherence only chaos and absurdity, or meaninglessness. The life-jacket, or anchor reason gives in the void of meaninglessness is broken by reason itself. Into the void of nothing reason drops us. Cut adrift in meaninglessness we are free to acquire other insights other realizations by transcending reason. Meaning can be reduced to absurdity. Meaninglessness can be reduced to absurdity but for those who hold meaninglessness as a view, or meaning there is no hope.
The point of the first quote, which you might have missed, is that surely, if one does not believe in reason one would not use reason.
-
if one does not believe in reason one would not use reason.
point of deans quote
is
if you believe in reason then reason by its own principles will end in meaninglessness
if you believe in reason
reason will show its own bankuptcy by destroying it self with its own principles
-
if one does not believe in reason one would not use reason.
point of deans quote
is
if you believe in reason then reason by its own principles will end in meaninglessness
if you believe in reason
reason will show its own bankuptcy by destroying it self with its own principles
But it doesn't. Just because somebody claims that it does, and then dallies with some semantic buffoonery, does not change the fact. And, again back tot he quote - if he does not believe in reason, is it not a paradox to argue such with reason?
-
you seem to think that because science works it must not be a myth
you are falling for the idiots fallacy in thinking that because it works the explanation why it works must be true
facts is science works but its explanations as to why it works are just myths
Strange then that these myths are so very good at predicting what will and won't work. Do you think that the internet was sneezed out of somebody's nose? That it just came to be and worked? And that, as a side effect science could match up it's theories with it?
-
But it doesn't. Just because somebody claims that it does, and then dallies with some semantic buffoonery, does not change the fact. And, again back tot he quote - if he does not believe in reason, is it not a paradox to argue such with reason?
the paradox is
reason by reasons principles destroyes reasons principles