https://www.facebook.com/envolk/posts/4327543323939734
поделилась своей первой публикацией.
· 18 ч. ·
You cannot do mathematics or science without a conceptual system but such systems are not objective and permanent. They are subject to change and development. Therefore we cannot claim that the reality that we experience and work with in science is independent of the mind of the scientist. The objectivity that we claim for mathematical and scientific results is relative objectivity.
Комментарии: 11
Steve Marriott
can you give an example of systemic change within a tightly bound regime such as math or physics ...
· Ответить · 16 ч.
Cornel Izbaşa
Steve Marriott
Facts:
1. An atom isn't atomic.
2. Subatomic particles can behave like particles or like waves.
3. There is no Newtonian absolute time.
Hypotheses:
4. Spacetime may be a quantum emergent phenomenon. (Sean Carroll)
5. The state of a physical system may be observer-dependent. (Carlo Rovelli)
· Ответить · 15 ч.
Steve Marriott
there is no disparity. The matter is not of systemic change but of epistemology. None of the above examples have any relevance to systemic change. And you should note premise 1 defies itself. You can verify this by quoting your own premise 2. As for the various quantum positions of which you have cited; being only a small spectrum of the full gamut of quantum ideas, it seems to me the system is in full working order. If you find uncertainty disconcerting then stay out of the philosophical kitchen
· Ответить · 15 ч. · Отредактировано
Allen Cheshire
No, and Popper supposed more than a few times that mathematical truths were probably the closet things we have to certainty regarding the truth of something. He's using this as more of an illustrative statement than a literal investigation of mathematics. Hence the use of relative "objectivity" coming from a position that maintains all knowledge is subjective by corrected definition.
· Ответить · 15 ч. · Отредактировано
Напишите общедоступный ответ…
Jan Christian Rübsam
Can you name anything concrete or is this the usual reality denial by some philosophical schools. If there is no objectivity, solipsism can be true.
You should also know that critical rationalism is not positivism.
Almost everything around you in a modern society requires mathematical calculations in order to function.
· Ответить · 13 ч.
Allen Cheshire
Jan Christian Rübsam Bayesian vs Frequentist Statistics; but I stand by my comment it wasn't meant to reduce mathematics to solipsism. I suspect Bayesian updating alone might meet the request.
· Ответить · 11 ч. · Отредактировано
Bruce Mills
Allen Cheshire Bayesian reasoning requires some prior knowledge of the distributions. I also cannot see anything in what you say that applies to mainstream formal science more than it applies you deciding to go to the shop and buy an apple.
· Ответить · 5 ч.
Allen Cheshire
I wasn't really trying to inform mainstream science. I found the OPs statement general enough that even though the arguments against it seemed misdirected I'd make an attempt to make good on a "conceptual system....subject to change". The two different approaches to statistics have some fundamental differences which seem to meet the challenge. Bayesian reasoning requires the updating of assumptions based on new information. Rather specific apple.
· Ответить · 4 ч.
Напишите общедоступный ответ…
Евгений Волков
Any conceptual (textual, language) description is a subjective human description, i.e. relative (preferably the chosen expression of relation to the products of the work of one's perception and consciousness).
· Ответить · 5 ч.
Alex Brocklehurst
This is a partial framing of the critique of the entire Western tradition made by the likes of Derrida. However one does not need to step outside a Popperian sphere to essay such critique. Paul Feyerabend in Conquest of Abundance would be in broad alignment; except that he would make a distinction between mathematics and science, as well as objectivity and permanence. The critique of said tradition engaged by Feyerabend takes seriously ontology, phenomenology and process, such that the provisional nature and intrinsic subjectivity of all knowledge is not falsely connoted as problematic for objective reality. Feyerabend would qualify the contention by suggesting that there is no permanence but there is objective reality. He would also apply the statement to science not mathematics. The conclusion that there is no reality independent of the mind of the scientist is correct, according to Feyerabend and that is because the stories which make up the aperture through which all phenomena (both mental AND extra-mental) become part of the reality which then acts reflexively upon the perceiving mind - allowing fresh insights and deeper penetration into what may happen to be discoverable. What this does is furnish new hypotheses, capable of opening up more insights within an open, not closed system. Therefore objective? Yes! Permanent? No!
The whole arena around relativism can be cleared up if we look at criticism of the Western rationalist traditions. In that regard, Feyerabend is the required reading, should you wish to stay on CR home soil, rather than swim around in Derrida.
· Ответить · 4 ч.
Andrew Crawshaw
The statement after "therefore" is not a valid derivation from the statement before it. Furthermore, the statement before it contains the true claim that conceptual schemes are subject to development and the second contains the false claim that "we cannot claim [x]": we can claim anything we like. What matters is whether it is true.
· Ответить · 3 ч.