Science does not describe reality

B

BidenPresident

Verified User
Bas van Fraassen | Bas van Fraassen is Professor of Philosopher of Philosophy at Princeton University and San Francisco State University. He is a leading scholar of Empiricist thought in the philosophy of science, epistemology and formal logic.

Philosophers of science divide into empiricists and realists.

The scientific realists give a story about what to believe: to accept a theory is to believe that the things it talks about, observable or not, are really real.

On an empiricist view, the aim of science is to give us empirically adequate theories. There is a distinction between being true in all respects and being true about what is observable. Acceptance need not involve a belief that the unobservable parts of the scientifically represented world are real.

https://iai.tv/articles/science-does-not-describe-reality-auid-2724?_auid=2020
 
The maths give us a clue that some scientific theories are a good approximation of aspects of ontological reality.

Math existed before science and there was no expectation originally that abstract mathmatics was so curiously functional and presice at describing nature.

The peculiar juxtaposition of nature and rational mathmatical organization seems like a clue that science is capable in some respects of perceiving ontological reality
 
Cypress said:
The maths give us a clue that some scientific theories are a good approximation of aspects of ontological reality.

Math existed before science and there was no expectation originally that abstract mathmatics was so curiously functional and presice at describing nature.

The peculiar juxtaposition of nature and rational mathmatical organization seems like a clue that science is capable in some respects of perceiving ontological reality
Click to expand...

What does "ontological reality" mean?
 
More scientists need to be philosophically trained so they better understand what counts as an explanation.


Some scientific novices believe that photoreceptors in our eyes explain our subjective mental experience of colors.

It does nothing of the sort. Neurophysiology ascertains the physical facts of how retinal cones and rods detect photons, and translate optical wave properties into an electrical impulse. But that has no explanatory power for our subjective mental experience of red, gold, green, etc.
 
Cypress said:
Freshman introductory philosophy: ontology, the nature of being, of what really exists.
Click to expand...

"These are “norms that prevail within the discipline that are not respected in public discourse, and that expose philosophers to cancellation risk,” he says. They are:

3. Stipulative definition of terminology. Philosophy also places a great deal of emphasis on the definition of terms. It is essential to be clear about what one is and is not committed to in making a particular claim; one must be clear about the terms one is using.

If one says that “X =def Y” then for the purposes of the argument that follows, X means Y, and one can only be held accountable for the inferences that follow from that. In particular, the fact that other people use X to mean Z becomes irrelevant to the argument. Philosophers have become so used to this disciplinary practice that they often take it for granted. Yet it is also quite unnatural.

https://dailynous.com/2024/01/30/philosophical-norms-cancel-culture/
 
... There is a distinction between being true in all respects and being true about what is observable....

As has been said, the above is true and easily testable and known to us.

We know that in the world of sight and sound, both certain animals, and insects, and other other mammals, and reptiles can both see and hear things on the spectrum we are blind and deaf too.

Sights and sounds a human would say do not exist, as they do not in the physical world we can directly access with only our own faculty.
 
QP! said:
... There is a distinction between being true in all respects and being true about what is observable....

As has been said, the above is true and easily testable and known to us.

We know that in the world of sight and sound, both certain animals, and insects, and other other mammals, and reptiles can both see and hear things on the spectrum we are blind and deaf too.

Sights and sounds a human would say do not exist, as they do not in the physical world we can directly access with only our own faculty.
Click to expand...

As Bas van Fraasen said, science can given accurate descriptions but not statements about what is true.
 
QP! said:
... There is a distinction between being true in all respects and being true about what is observable....

As has been said, the above is true and easily testable and known to us.

We know that in the world of sight and sound, both certain animals, and insects, and other other mammals, and reptiles can both see and hear things on the spectrum we are blind and deaf too.

Sights and sounds a human would say do not exist, as they do not in the physical world we can directly access with only our own faculty.
Click to expand...

The distinction being drawn is that what is empirically observable is not neccesarily ontologically true.

Electromagnetic radiation at the wavelength 700 nanometers is manifested in our mind as the color red.

But how do we know our subjective mental experience of red is how the world really is independent of how our mind processes and experiences EM radiation of that wavelength and frequency?

Do we really know what a tree falling in the forest sounds like? Or is the sound just a subjective mental experience of how our brain processes electrical impulses generated by compressional waves in air,?
 
Cypress said:
The distinction being drawn is that what is empirically observable is not neccesarily ontologically true.

Electromagnetic radiation at the wavelength 700 nanometers is manifested in our mind as the color red.

But how do we know our subjective mental experience of red is how the world really is independent of how our mind processes and experiences EM radiation of that wavelength and frequency?

Do we really know what a tree falling in the forest sounds like? Or is the sound just a subjective mental experience of how our brain processes electrical impulses generated by compressional waves in air,?
Click to expand...

I am not sure if you are disagreeing with what i said or if my first sentence was awkward and confused you?

When i say it is 'testable and true' what i meant is that we' humans' cannot discern the "distinction between being true...and what is observable'.

I was agreeing with that statement and saying we can test ourselves easily to prove it by looking at how we process sound and sight. A natural conclusion to my post could have also been 'if a tree falling...' questions too.

So i think we are in agreement but my first sentence could be confusing.
 
QP! said:
I am not sure if you are disagreeing with what i said or if my first sentence was awkward and confused you?

When i say it is 'testable and true' what i meant is that we' humans' cannot discern the "distinction between being true...and what is observable'.

I was agreeing with that statement and saying we can test ourselves easily to prove it by looking at how we process sound and sight. A natural conclusion to my post could have also been 'if a tree falling...' questions too.

So i think we are in agreement but my first sentence could be confusing.
Click to expand...

If we define sound as that which humans detect, then a tree falling does not make sound if no humans detect it. A seeming sublime Zen koan that is easily answered.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top