Philosopher8659's idea about so-called sciences

Discussions on the philosophical foundations, assumptions, and implications of science, including the natural sciences.

Philosopher8659's idea about so-called sciences

Postby Philosopher8659 on April 8th, 2014, 11:41 am 

Since philosophy deals with truth, and truth with the principles of language, the lack of philosophy in some so called sciences is a given.


Anyone who can talk about waves, which is simply a form of motion, while completely innocent of the material of which it is the form over, is really cute.
Philosopher8659
 


Re: Analogy of the Higgs field.

Postby Marshall on April 8th, 2014, 2:08 pm 

Philosopher8659 » Tue Apr 08, 2014 8:41 am wrote:... truth with the principles of language, ... so called sciences ...


Anyone who can talk about waves, which is simply a form of motion, while completely innocent of the material of which it is the form over, is really cute.


Hee hee, snide tone :^D "so-called sciences"

I guess according to Mr. Philosopher8659, the ultimate cute person would have been James Clerk Maxwell who gave us waves which propagate most places and much of the time without any material moving
rather the waves propagate by a pattern of CHANGES in the electromagnetic field.

The sputter about "truth with the principles of language" is interesting because it prompts one to reflect that language is an evolving usage and its principles are never completely defined in a fixed-for-all-time way. The mathematical sciences are language communities where there is active evolution of invented (symbol-mediated) language which impinges on SPOKEN and THOUGHT language. So they drive evolution in ordinary common language. Sure, consumer technology and popular culture ALSO drive evolution in our ordinary common language, but I do think mathematical sciences have an effect we should be conscious of.

Eg the idea of field. :^D.

Would urge Mr. 8659 to take account of it.
Marshall
 


Re: Analogy of the Higgs field.

Postby Philosopher8659 on April 8th, 2014, 2:49 pm 

Do you seriously believe that the principles behind common grammar are different than from math or geometry? Or do all langauges derive from the definition of a thing itself, as reflected by any environmental acquisition system of any living organism, even you. Do you seriously believe that knowing is what you do not know? If there is not an immutable foundation for language, than why speaik at all?

Did you ever stop to realize that it is anthropormorphic to think language evolves? When in fact it is the mind of man evolving to become linguistic. An example is the new Analogic Geometry I have been posting on the Archive and Youtube. You should be able to look at a figure and write its equations as well as look at an equation and draw its analog. Neither of these did I ever learn in school.

And chew on this for a moment. If there is in fact, this one to one correspondence between arithmetic, algebra and Euclidean Geometry, then non-Euclidean Geometry only stands because of the myths undesturbed by a blind mind.
Philosopher8659
 


Re: Philosopher8659's idea about so-called sciences

Postby Marshall on April 8th, 2014, 3:45 pm 

Dear Mr 8659, I did not say what you suggest I said and are asking me if I seriously believe.

Let's just look at your lead post:
"Since philosophy deals with truth, and truth with the principles of language, the lack of philosophy in some so called sciences is a given."

It sounds somehow combative, science versus philosophy. Please correct me if this isn't what you meant: if phil. deals with truth, and some sciences lack phil., then wouldn't those sciences not be about truth?
Or else those sciences are not using "the principles of language"?

But if by "the principles of language" you mean simple English grammar, then I am puzzled, because I read scientific papers in several lines of research, and they generally use very good grammar!

By "the principles of language" I think you must mean something more, which you have not explained. Perhaps the PoL are illustrated by some examples of verbal reasoning you have given, such as in the above post where you reason that non-Euclidean geometry is invalid, because (I take it) arithmetic is valid and Eucliedean geometry is arithmetical.

Or PoL are illustrated in this statement in your lead post:

"Anyone who can talk about waves, which is simply a form of motion, while completely innocent of the material of which it is the form over, is really cute."

It sounds (correct me if I am not hearing you correctly) contemptuous. Your premise seems to be that MOTION MUST INVOLVE MATERIAL. Is this a principle of language?

And why do you say that waves are SIMPLY A FORM OF MOTION? This is an unfamiliar idea to me. Could this statement be based on what you think is a principle of language?

Indeed water waves do have something moving: the water moves up and down. But in some other major types of wave there is nothing moving up and down or back and forth etc.
In the path of such waves nothing material moves unless someone places an instrument there to DETECT the passage of the wave.
Marshall
 



Return to Philosophy of Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests