+- Scivillage.com Casual Discussion Science Forum (https://www.scivillage.com)
+-- Forum: Science (https://www.scivillage.com/forum-61.html)
+--- Forum: Logic, Metaphysics & Philosophy (https://www.scivillage.com/forum-80.html)
+--- Thread: Challenge to scientific realism + Causation in scientific methods + Recent SEP update (/thread-3487.html)
Challenge to scientific realism + Causation in scientific methods + Recent SEP update - C C - Mar 20, 2017
Sommerfeld’s Miracle: The Ultimate Challenge to Scientific Realism
http://thebjps.typepad.com/my-blog/
EXCERPT: A ‘no miracles’ argument is still prevalent in the scientific realism debate, even if a lot has changed since Hilary Putnam’s formulation of it, and even if the word ‘miracle’ is generally avoided. For example, realists think that if the most central ‘working’ parts of a scientific theory were not even approximately true (for any serious theory of ‘approximate truth’), then it would be incredibly unlikely (‘miraculous’) for that theory to deliver successful novel predictions with ‘perfect’ quantitative accuracy (e.g. to several significant figures). It would be like perfectly predicting the time and position of the next solar eclipse based on a completely false (not even approximately true) model of how the sun, moon, and earth interact. Here it is appropriate to talk in terms of ‘counterexamples’ to scientific realism: any historical case where a scientific theory delivered ‘perfect’ predictions but where the central working parts of the theory are now thought to be radically false would be a very serious thorn in the side of nearly every contemporary scientific realist position....
Causation in Scientific Methods
http://thebjps.typepad.com/my-blog/2016/11/causation-in-scientific-methods.html
EXCERPT: Need scientists worry about philosophy? Or should philosophers get off their backs and let them do their work in peace? Unsurprisingly, many scientists want to stay clear of philosophical discussions. What is more disturbing is when I hear philosophers themselves announce that our discipline has nothing useful to offer science. In my view, they could not be more wrong.
I study causation. Scientists search for causation. It is clear that we have some interests in common, but our approach is different. I want to know what causation is and what it means for something to cause something else. Scientists use methods to discover causes, choosing the ones they think are best suited for the task. But how can one judge which method is better or worse for picking out causation unless one already has some idea of what causation is?
There are many philosophical theories of causation available and no general agreement about which one is correct. Is causation the same as regularity, difference-making, probability-raising, manipulability, energy transference, tendencies, or perhaps all of these? And what difference does it make to the scientist, one way or the other?
As it happens, scientific methods are not philosophically neutral. They bring with them all sorts of philosophical commitments, especially but not exclusively about causation. These days I am writing a book with Stephen Mumford on causation in science. During this work I’ve come to realise just how much positivism and Humean philosophy has influenced the normative and methodological foundation of science in general. In the book we encourage the scientist to critically reflect upon this philosophical foundation, while also offering an alternative. In our research project, Causation, Complexity and Evidence in Health Sciences (CauseHealth),1 we offer an alternative to positivism for medicine.
So how do scientific methods involve philosophical assumptions about the nature of causation? A quick glance at some basic methodological approaches might help illustrate this point....
Recent updates to SEP entries:
Friedrich Nietzsche
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nietzsche/
Nietzsche's Life and Works
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nietzsche-life-works/
Contractarianism
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/contractarianism/
Maimonides
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/maimonides/
Juan Luis Vives [Joannes Ludovicus Vives]
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/vives/
RE: Challenge to scientific realism + Causation in scientific methods + Recent SEP update - RainbowUnicorn - Mar 20, 2017
(Mar 20, 2017 01:05 AM)C C Wrote: Causation in Scientific Methods
http://thebjps.typepad.com/my-blog/2016/11/causation-in-scientific-methods.html
EXCERPT: Need scientists worry about philosophy? Or should philosophers get off their backs and let them do their work in peace? Unsurprisingly, many scientists want to stay clear of philosophical discussions. What is more disturbing is when I hear philosophers themselves announce that our discipline has nothing useful to offer science. In my view, they could not be more wrong.
I study causation. Scientists search for causation. It is clear that we have some interests in common, but our approach is different. I want to know what causation is and what it means for something to cause something else. Scientists use methods to discover causes, choosing the ones they think are best suited for the task. But how can one judge which method is better or worse for picking out causation unless one already has some idea of what causation is?
There are many philosophical theories of causation available and no general agreement about which one is correct. Is causation the same as regularity, difference-making, probability-raising, manipulability, energy transference, tendencies, or perhaps all of these? And what difference does it make to the scientist, one way or the other?
As it happens, scientific methods are not philosophically neutral. They bring with them all sorts of philosophical commitments, especially but not exclusively about causation. These days I am writing a book with Stephen Mumford on causation in science. During this work I’ve come to realise just how much positivism and Humean philosophy has influenced the normative and methodological foundation of science in general. In the book we encourage the scientist to critically reflect upon this philosophical foundation, while also offering an alternative. In our research project, Causation, Complexity and Evidence in Health Sciences (CauseHealth),1 we offer an alternative to positivism for medicine.
So how do scientific methods involve philosophical assumptions about the nature of causation? A quick glance at some basic methodological approaches might help illustrate this point....
i am also fascinated by this premise.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%80%93particle_duality
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_superposition
what alarms me as a heavily undermining influence on future science is the indoctrination of children through school via creationism being normalised.
Creationism is the A.I.D.S of modern science.
we can learn to live with it. we can make allowances for it. we can adjust to seek to try and prevent it from spreading.
but we cant cure it so once it has taken root in the minds of children,it prevents them from being scientists.
Morality is what defines causation by dissociatiation of method from outcome validity.
can we dissociate morality from method ?
can we dissociate morality from the self performing the method ?
is thiesm seperate to intellectuality ?
RE: Challenge to scientific realism + Causation in scientific methods + Recent SEP update - C C - Mar 20, 2017
(Mar 20, 2017 03:45 PM)RainbowUnicorn Wrote: what alarms me as a heavily undermining influence on future science is the indoctrination of children through school via creationism being normalised. Creationism is the A.I.D.S of modern science.
Curiously, it's contended in some corners that Islamic creationism and evolution haven't been as much of a saber-rattling pair until recently due to much of the non-academic population of the Middle East being unaware of evolution or its specifics.
RE: Challenge to scientific realism + Causation in scientific methods + Recent SEP update - RainbowUnicorn - Mar 21, 2017
(Mar 20, 2017 11:36 PM)C C Wrote:(Mar 20, 2017 03:45 PM)RainbowUnicorn Wrote: what alarms me as a heavily undermining influence on future science is the indoctrination of children through school via creationism being normalised. Creationism is the A.I.D.S of modern science.
Curiously, it's contended in some corners that Islamic creationism and evolution haven't been as much of a saber-rattling pair until recently due to much of the non-academic population of the Middle East being unaware of evolution or its specifics.
with greater knowledge to those who hold power and control as the primary facets of culture, science is bent to serve their egos.