Notices
Results 1 to 36 of 36

Thread: Is String Theory Philosophy?

  1. #1 Is String Theory Philosophy? 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Belmont
    Posts
    23
    Ever theory must make testable predictions to accepted so why is string theory accepted?


    Mathematics and physics greatest problem is solved with testable solutions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: Is String Theory Philosophy? 
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Unification123
    Ever theory must make testable predictions to accepted so why is string theory accepted?
    It isn't.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Belmont
    Posts
    23
    So what makes it sceince?
    Mathematics and physics greatest problem is solved with testable solutions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Waveman28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    417
    Quote Originally Posted by Unification123
    So what makes it science?
    Well, nothing. It isn't.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Unification123
    So what makes it sceince?
    It is one avenue of research towards a theory that may explain both quantum mechanics and general relativity.

    It is far from complete and far from producing testable physical predictions, which is what is required of a physical theory.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Belmont
    Posts
    23
    If testable predictions are what is required then how is it science? I thought the empirical evidence is how we seperated science from philosophy.

    (Text removed)


    If you wish to discuss the pros and cons of string theory, fine. However, using said discussion to promote your own book is considered spamming.
    Mathematics and physics greatest problem is solved with testable solutions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Belmont
    Posts
    23
    My intentions was not to self promote certainly not for profit. I thought it was the same as when Arix links to published documents are posted to make a case. The topic is not pros and cons of String Theory. The question is "Is String Theory Philosophy?" If it is philosophy, it has no pros in science and without testable results it is not research I was just making that case.
    Mathematics and physics greatest problem is solved with testable solutions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Unification123
    without testable results it is not research I was just making that case.
    This is where you are wrong.

    Research into the formulation of a theory is necessary before it is possible to make testable predictions. Lack of testable predictions is not a symptom of the failure of an avenue to research to be science. It just a symptom of immaturity of the subject.

    String theory is legitimate scientific research. It is just not mature enought for testable predictions. It may never be, and in that case string theory will not become part of accepted science. Not all legitimate avenues of scientific research bear fruit.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Belmont
    Posts
    23
    The question is "Is String Theory Philosophy?" It's a yes or no question. I am a religious person and by definition what I believe is philosophy because the foundation for my theory or belief is based on "God" which we will never detect experimentally. String Theory is based on a string which they say we will never be detected unless we build a collider the size of the universe. I guess that is never.

    The ether theory was research because once Michealson and Morley was able to prove it wrong, we moved on. The standard model is research and when the LHC proves them wrong they will move on. String Theory was research when they tried to describe the Strong Force. I didn't work out and they were asked to move on. Now they've resurfaced but this time they made sure they would not have to move on. They designed it that way. Forty plus years of grant money, they an't got no reason to move on.
    Mathematics and physics greatest problem is solved with testable solutions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    But it's not a yes or no question. You are imposing a false dichotomy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Belmont
    Posts
    23
    If a Creationist was using equations to describe God or any other unseen undetectable structure every physics or mathematician with a Ph.D in the world would answer the question with "NO" and acceptance would not be pending a discovery or miracle.

    String Theory is worst than philosophy because it hides behind the logic of mathematics and the experimental results of real sciences like General Relativity and some aspect of quantum physics (Yang Mills).

    Time is not a good example because time has been investigated. As absolute, from a relative prespect as well as the thermodynamic perspective. Throughout its evolutionary process each time time was evaluated it has been a benefit as a testable theory. Strings has not made one prediction of its own. Dark matter and Dark Energy are discoveries that they should have predicted as a replacement for General Relativity. They blew it but what's really sad is they are the authority on what it is. They team put the particle physicist to produce a standard model. Wow!

    String Theory is an institutional philosophy because it dominates careers and resources. Experimental physics do not have to mature, philosophical theoretical physicist need to mature or grow up. When the public sees the solution Einstein sought or the cure to conjecture, String Theorist will move on like snake oil salesmen during the time of the dark ages ie (Dark Matter, Dark Flow and Dark Energy). It'll be worst than having a degree in the theory of the flat earth.

    I ask the question, "Is String Theory Philosophy" because if the answer is yes then we the public can use our resources for real science and a real unification. The consequences for funding philosophy is first the lost of the public trust, a resurgence of metaphysics based on phenomena that should have been logically explained by now (quantum logic), and the lost of funding for science in general because String Theory and the LHC are the public face of science and they say they offer nothing. That's not a wise thing to say during a recession.
    Mathematics and physics greatest problem is solved with testable solutions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Unification123

    Time is not a good example because time has been investigated. As absolute, from a relative prespect as well as the thermodynamic perspective. Throughout its evolutionary process each time time was evaluated it has been a benefit as a testable theory. Strings has not made one prediction of its own. Dark matter and Dark Energy are discoveries that they should have predicted as a replacement for General Relativity. They blew it but what's really sad is they are the authority on what it is. They team put the particle physicist to produce a standard model. Wow!
    You don't know what you are talking about.

    The only correct statement in this paragraph is that we still await a new testable prediction from string theory. But then we still await a clear definition of what string theory is. You clearly do not understand the nature of research or where string theory lies on the path between an initial idea and a predictive physical theory.

    The remainder of the paragraph is just nonsense.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Belmont
    Posts
    23
    The correct statement is the only real statement when it comes to real science. I think the time you so freely give for results is linked to the fact that the public is funding most of that nonsense you call research. The private sector would never fund that nonsense. The private sector knows what philosophy is and they don't even fund it in the form of unrealistic projects. Like a propetual motion mechine. You can't even get a patent for that foolishness. The private sector would have cut the string from the time they heard the idea. Remember the private sector was the first to fund quantum physics. Good investment. Good Return. Good Timing, didn't have to wait forty years for the transistor.
    Mathematics and physics greatest problem is solved with testable solutions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Unification123
    The correct statement is the only real statement when it comes to real science. I think the time you so freely give for results is linked to the fact that the public is funding most of that nonsense you call research. The private sector would never fund that nonsense. The private sector knows what philosophy is and they don't even fund it in the form of unrealistic projects. Like a propetual motion mechine. You can't even get a patent for that foolishness. The private sector would have cut the string from the time they heard the idea. Remember the private sector was the first to fund quantum physics. Good investment. Good Return. Good Timing, didn't have to wait forty years for the transistor.
    Your point is irrelevant. The private sector does very little basic research. Virtually the only exceptions were the Bell Lavoratories and the IBM Watson Research Center,

    I have made many funding decisions with respect to private sector research, and you are correct, I would not have funded string theory research. But that is because I was interested in research with the potential to produce a near-term product and monetary return.

    That mindset does not apply to long-term basic research. Without lthat long-term basic research there would exist no short-term research to produce products and immediate financial returns. But that sort of research is too risky and has too long a time horizon for it to be performed in most private industries. That is why we fund research of that nature in universities. String theory is a very risky undertaking, but it is one that might, just might, result in a significant addition to the human understanding of nature.

    And no, the private sector was not the first to fund quantum physics. It came from the work of university physicists, notably Planck, Einstein, Heisenberg, Bohr, Pauli, Schrödinger, and Wigner. What is true is that the transistor was invented at Bell Laboratories by solid state physicists who won the Nobel Prize for that work. They set out specifically to invent a solid-state amplifying device. Impressive work, and it won a Nobel prize.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Belmont
    Posts
    23
    You don't know your history so what I'm saying should not make sense. The private sector support led to the development of quantum mechanics. The Black body radiation problem predates Max Planck. He found the solution but it was the private sector that spear headed the funding research. First in furnaces and later with respect to determining the optimum power needed to produce greatest intensity in light output. The emerging industrial lighting indurstry supported Max Planck's research which produced quantum mechanics.


    Most of the greatest scientist of the past were wealthy because they had to use their own money for curiosity driven research, before then it was the military and the others were supported by industry. The idea that public funds should be used for non-practical research is fairly new in science and String Theoriest as well as others are taking full advantage. If String Theorist had to fund their own research they'd stop doing it, that's how much they believe in it their philosophy.
    Mathematics and physics greatest problem is solved with testable solutions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,702
    i don't have anything to add to the discussion, so feel free to delete this Janus. I just want to point out some inconsistencies in uni's statements.(my copy command isn't working, so I will be typing out quotes, if they are not 100% accurate, my apologies)

    "I thought the empirical evidence is how we separated science from philosophy."

    You are wrong. Empiricism is a philosophy.

    "If it is philosophy, it has no pros in science"

    This is a philosophical argument, the implications of which may benefit science. For example if philosophy has no pros in science, but scientists believe it to have banefits and waste time philosophizing to discover new scientific evidence, but find no evidence and do not know why. Confirming for them that philosophy has not pros in science will have a pro in science, yet it is a philosophical argument. If you follow my logic, you will clearly see that your own logic is self defeating.

    If you do not follow my logic, critical thinking(philosophy 101) has many benefits to science, although the scientific method is a better suited alternative to experimentation; not all scienctific studies are the result of new experimentation, but are based on a collection of previous experiments, and critical thinking is a must to confirm that those previous experiments are relivant to the point. Many studies are not just a collection of organized data, but begin with the scientist's thoughts and intentions; one must use critical thinking to confirm if these thoughts and intentions are justified. When doing your own scientific research, it is important to use critical thinking to confirm which claims are valid(substantiated with evidence) and which are not; and when a claim is made you need to use critical thinking to confirm whether the supporting evidence is relevant. Without philosophy, the scientific community may not be harmed directly, but the effects of the scientific community would be very harmfull to everyone else, as they wouldn't have any means of knowing what relivance the data has on things, politicians would be able to cite any scientific study as evidence in support of any public policy(in a way this happens, as critical thinking is not as practiced as it could be) which would cause everyone else to be harmful to the scientific community.

    in summary, philosophy prevents, at least in part, science from being abused... the more science is abused, the more non-scientists will cause harm to science; thus philosophy has pros to science


    "string theory is worst than philosophy"
    "string theory is philosophy"



    for your amusement
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    US
    Posts
    122
    Yes,

    String theory is philosophy. The difference between a scientific theory and a philosophical theory is that one has empirical testability, and the other doesn't. Regardless of how many physicists and scientists favor the string theory, it is still philosophy, not science.

    The String theory is just philosophy based off mathematical speculation. It started in the 1970s and to date there are no testable predictions of the string theory.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by VitalOne
    Yes,

    String theory is philosophy. The difference between a scientific theory and a philosophical theory is that one has empirical testability, and the other doesn't. Regardless of how many physicists and scientists favor the string theory, it is still philosophy, not science.

    The String theory is just philosophy based off mathematical speculation. It started in the 1970s and to date there are no testable predictions of the string theory.
    It is neither.

    String theory has not yet even been clearly definied.

    It is a perfectly valid research topic. It is not yet, and may never be, a true physical theory. You are correct in that in order to become a valid physical theory it must make testable new predictions.

    It is important to recognize that string theory is not a theory. It ia collection of several incomplete attempts to formulate a theory. The term "string theory" is a catch all for a general area of research, and not a single entity.

    But neither is it philosophy. I has the potential to be far more substantative if and when it matures. The objective is testable predictions, in contrast to philosophy. It just has not reached that level of maturity.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Guest
    And what exactly would it matter if string theory was more philosophical? Actually, I generally find that philosophy works better than the axiomatic and scientific methods of mathematics and science, respectively.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,702
    Quote Originally Posted by Ellatha
    And what exactly would it matter if string theory was more philosophical? Actually, I generally find that philosophy works better than the axiomatic and scientific methods of mathematics and science, respectively.
    philosophy works better for what?
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    574
    Philosophy is not an isolated realm of science only at universities maybe ; better use the verb "to philosophy" instead of philosophy. Then "phylosophying" (is that correct english ?) about things is part of every particular science just as empirism is. Some times the - more theoretic - "philosophying" runs ahead other times empiric findings or inventions run ahead. I think it,s part of how science evolves and has evolved.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Ellatha
    And what exactly would it matter if string theory was more philosophical? Actually, I generally find that philosophy works better than the axiomatic and scientific methods of mathematics and science, respectively.
    Then you have a LOT to learn.

    You might start by reading Dreams of a Final Theory by Steven Weinberg and in particular the chapter entitles "Against Philosophy".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    I think the main problem with grounded science is that it takes an awful lot to overthrow an established paradigm. Think of the Luminiferous Aether of the 18th and 19th century. If you came up with a theory of motion that precluded the existence of the luminiferous Aether before Michelson and Morley had come along to disprove it, I think nobody would have taken you seriously.

    Philosophy is about questioning everything. You don't need to overthrow anything, because nothing is assumed to be accurate. There is no "body" of philosophy like there is a "body" of science. If you can't build your idea entirely from first principles, then you just don't build.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    I think the main problem with grounded science is that it takes an awful lot to overthrow an established paradigm. Think of the Luminiferous Aether of the 18th and 19th century. If you came up with a theory of motion that precluded the existence of the luminiferous Aether before Michelson and Morley had come along to disprove it, I think nobody would have taken you seriously.

    Philosophy is about questioning everything. You don't need to overthrow anything, because nothing is assumed to be accurate. There is no "body" of philosophy like there is a "body" of science. If you can't build your idea entirely from first principles, then you just don't build.
    One problem is a lack of first principles.

    Science will accept any thieory that is consistent with ALL empirical data.

    Einstein's relativity was really developed without much reference to the Michelson Morely experiment -- Einstein was not particularly motivated by the experiment.
    It did undoubtedly help with the acceptance by others. But that is not true of the general theory of relatiivity.

    The problem with philosophy is that while it questions everything it is more concerned iwth discourse than with ever reaching a concluison. There is a tendency for endless debate on subjects that are irrelevant to nearly everything.

    "There is no position so ridiculous that it has not been held by some philosopher." – Cicero
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    7
    ... Good investment. Good Return. Good Timing, didn't have to wait forty years for the transistor.
    Birth of Quantum physics :

    Max Planck : Light 'Quanta' (E=hf) 1900
    Einstein (Photoelectric Effect) 1905

    .... (many more researchers)...

    William Shockley : created transistor in 1947
    Silicon transistor was produced by Texas Instruments in 1954

    So, you were right they didn't have to wait 40 years for a commerical return on transistors, it was longer.

    BTW Einstein's relativity theory stated as a "thought experiment" which is to say philosophical thinking, albeit mathematical as well. Relativity itself was a 19th century scientific philosophy, which he combined with ideas from Maxwells equations. Only once he had it all worked out was he able to make testable predictions, which experimentalists could compare to actual data. So, it wasn't empirical at all, and it wasn't funded by any private company. By your logic we should have thrown that out from the start.


    BTW, Unification123, you wouldn't happen to know a blogger called Sam Carana would you? You two seem similar
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Belmont
    Posts
    23
    The issues related to the transitor were always about economics. The end game is results and if results are not achieved within a specific amount of time then funding is cut.

    String Theory recieved a waiver on practical results. Their idea of a unification will not make anyones life better.

    String Theory should not recieve a waiver on what they say the could do. Finding a theory of everything. No one is saying String Theorist should not persue their theory or in their case untestable theory, ie (Philosophy). Just do it on your time and dime.

    Even if Einstein's Special and General Theory was philosophy, it was funded by his personal wealth or lack of as a patent clerk. True Einstein primarly focused on theory but there is no real scientist that does not what to know if he or she is right or wrong.
    Mathematics and physics greatest problem is solved with testable solutions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Unification123

    String Theory recieved a waiver on practical results. Their idea of a unification will not make anyones life better.
    Among your plethora of confusions is a confusin as to the difference between science and engineering.

    There is NO requirement for "practical results" in scientific endeavors. The point of scientific research is purely understanding and knowledge.

    It is historically true, and will likely remain true in the future, that spinoffs of scientific research have practical results. But it is not a necessity. Those practical results need not be directly related to the science being pursued. One spinoff of experimental research in elementary particle physics, and the need to handle and communicate large quantities of data, is the internet.

    String theory is a part of elementary particle research. It originated as a means of modeling the strong force. So, in a real sense, it is a part of the work that lead to your ability to post nonsense. I guess we have to accept some bad with the good.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Quote Originally Posted by Ellatha
    And what exactly would it matter if string theory was more philosophical? Actually, I generally find that philosophy works better than the axiomatic and scientific methods of mathematics and science, respectively.
    Then you have a LOT to learn.

    You might start by reading Dreams of a Final Theory by Steven Weinberg and in particular the chapter entitles "Against Philosophy".
    I am currently busy reading several mathematics books, but I will check out the recommended books when I have the time. I don't think there is anybody in the world that doesn't have a lot to learn, as a note.

    The problems that I find with science is that the scientific method deals strictly with phenomena, that is, those events that are perceptible to the senses (e.g., sight, smell, touch, taste, and hearing for our species). It excludes the countless number of questions that cannot be empirically tested, i.e., it is too specific to be a method to accumulate all knowledge, as it is a method that accumulates all knowledge that leaves behind after effects. (For example, we can make theories about light because light is the reason as to why we can see things and therefore coordinate our bodies effectively. On the the other hand, what those questions that arise from mathematics? Science can't "test" that only one line can go threw any two points in Euclidean space because there are an infinite number of lines, and reality only allows us to test a finite number of times).

    This brings me to mathematics... the axiomatic method that mathematicians follow is superior to the scientific method of science, since it can deal with abstract perceptions that scientists cannot access (or for all practical purposes, cannot detect through their method). The linkage between mathematics and science is computer science, but in general we find that science in seemingly every branch (e.g., physics, chemistry, biology, and many others) borrows from mathematics (statistics, algebra, calculus, geometry, etc...).

    On the other hand, mathematicians, as proven by Kurt Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, also do not have the luxury of a system that's complete.

    Philosophy ultimately deals with reality, and since reality communicates with the human mind through perception, than we can break down all of the "after effects" in science into their purest forms in order to predict rather than have to test and avoid the circular sub-systems of mathematics.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    323
    ......


    keep reading that math book!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Ellatha
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Quote Originally Posted by Ellatha
    And what exactly would it matter if string theory was more philosophical? Actually, I generally find that philosophy works better than the axiomatic and scientific methods of mathematics and science, respectively.
    Then you have a LOT to learn.

    You might start by reading Dreams of a Final Theory by Steven Weinberg and in particular the chapter entitles "Against Philosophy".
    I am currently busy reading several mathematics books, but I will check out the recommended books when I have the time. I don't think there is anybody in the world that doesn't have a lot to learn, as a note.

    The problems that I find with science is that the scientific method deals strictly with phenomena, that is, those events that are perceptible to the senses (e.g., sight, smell, touch, taste, and hearing for our species). It excludes the countless number of questions that cannot be empirically tested, i.e., it is too specific to be a method to accumulate all knowledge, as it is a method that accumulates all knowledge that leaves behind after effects. (For example, we can make theories about light because light is the reason as to why we can see things and therefore coordinate our bodies effectively. On the the other hand, what those questions that arise from mathematics? Science can't "test" that only one line can go threw any two points in Euclidean space because there are an infinite number of lines, and reality only allows us to test a finite number of times).
    Science is the study of the natural physical world. It does not purport to include all knowledge.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ellatha
    This brings me to mathematics... the axiomatic method that mathematicians follow is superior to the scientific method of science, since it can deal with abstract perceptions that scientists cannot access (or for all practical purposes, cannot detect through their method). The linkage between mathematics and science is computer science, but in general we find that science in seemingly every branch (e.g., physics, chemistry, biology, and many others) borrows from mathematics (statistics, algebra, calculus, geometry, etc...).

    On the other hand, mathematicians, as proven by Kurt Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, also do not have the luxury of a system that's complete.
    Mathematics is neither superior nor inferior to science.

    Mathematics is not science. It has no reliance on experiment for the validity of its resulsts.

    Mathematics is the study of order. The axiomatic method simply involves the discovery through intuition and the proof through logic of implications of a relatively small set of axioms.

    The linkage between mathematics and science is anything but computer science. Computer science is essentially irrelevant to the linkage. The linkage was evident for centuries prior to the invention of computers or the later development of computer science as a discipline. You might want to find and read the essay by Eugene Wigner entitled "The Unreasonable Success of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences."

    Quote Originally Posted by Ellatha
    Philosophy ultimately deals with reality, and since reality communicates with the human mind through perception, than we can break down all of the "after effects" in science into their purest forms in order to predict rather than have to test and avoid the circular sub-systems of mathematics.
    Phillosophers would like to think that. I find the work of professional philosophers about as unreal as it gets. They can spend rather a long time debating what "reality" means, but cannot produce a definition. Feel free to study epistomology and ontology if you like, but don't ever expect to see a conclusion. If you want to discuss whether a horse exists, then philosophy is for you. Personally I am willing to stipulate that a horse exists and get on with more important things.

    I you layed all the philosopohers in the world end to end they would not reach .....................................a conclusion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Guest
    Science is the study of the natural physical world. It does not purport to include all knowledge.
    No. Science can include political science and various other types. It is merely a coherent body of knowledge that researches seemingly any area of study the human mind can grasp. It owes a great debt to philosophy as does mathematics. For example, mathematics borrows a great deal from the study of logic of philosophy.

    Mathematics is neither superior nor inferior to science.
    I never said this. I said that the method it uses to gather its knowledge is more efficient. It's not difficult to see why science borrows so much from mathematics while mathematics borrows relatively little from science. Science, on the other hand, increases technology at a more rapid rate than does mathematics (since the Industrial Revolution, that is).

    Mathematics is not science. It has no reliance on experiment for the validity of its resulsts
    I don't think I ever argued against this.

    Mathematics is the study of order. The axiomatic method simply involves the discovery through intuition and the proof through logic of implications of a relatively small set of axioms.
    Science is also very much the study of order, although in a sort of more slippery way. From order we can extrapolate and predict, science does very much the same thing.

    The linkage between mathematics and science is anything but computer science.
    Well computer science is considered a branch of science, and it certainly raises many mathematics theories and questions. It definitely is not "anything but."

    The linkage was evident for centuries prior to the invention of computers or the later development of computer science as a discipline.
    Yes, science has always borrowed from mathematics. I just mean that computer science is a branch that is the most intermediate between the two (although physics can be suggested, it deals exclusively with the scientific method and is therefore certainly more scientific).

    Phillosophers would like to think that.
    I wouldn't know.

    I find the work of professional philosophers about as unreal as it gets.
    It is odd than why so many great philosophers have been great mathematicians, to name a few would include Blaise Pascal, Hypatia, Plato, Rene Decartes, Leibniz, Berkeley, and many others.

    They can spend rather a long time debating what "reality" means, but cannot produce a definition.
    Philosophy has a whole branch of study seemingly dedicated to definitions. You should perhaps read this letter Leibniz wrote that contains philosophical definitions:

    http://www.leibniz-translations.com/definitions.htm

    Feel free to study epistomology and ontology if you like, but don't ever expect to see a conclusion.
    You and I both know what subject area I would like to study, and it does not include philsophy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Ellatha
    Science is the study of the natural physical world. It does not purport to include all knowledge.
    No. Science can include political science and various other types. It is merely a coherent body of knowledge that researches seemingly any area of study the human mind can grasp. It owes a great debt to philosophy as does mathematics. For example, mathematics borrows a great deal from the study of logic of philosophy.
    Political science and other "social sciences" are not science at all.

    Much of what science owes to philosopohy is shrouded in antiquity. In more moder times philosophy has been somewhere between irrelevant and counterproductive in science.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ellatha
    ]Mathematics is neither superior nor inferior to science.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ellatha
    I never said this. I said that the method it uses to gather its knowledge is more efficient. It's not difficult to see why science borrows so much from mathematics while mathematics borrows relatively little from science. Science, on the other hand, increases technology at a more rapid rate than does mathematics (since the Industrial Revolution, that is).
    The methods of mathematics are neither more nor less efficient than those of science. They are different because the subject is different.

    Mathematics borrows problems to be solved from science. Science borrows methods to describe nature from mathematics.



    Mathematics is the study of order. The axiomatic method simply involves the discovery through intuition and the proof through logic of implications of a relatively small set of axioms.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ellatha
    Science is also very much the study of order, although in a sort of more slippery way. From order we can extrapolate and predict, science does very much the same thing.
    Science is the study of nature, whether it is ordered or not. Thankfully, it does appear to be understandable and in that fashion also orderly.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ellatha
    ]The linkage between mathematics and science is anything but computer science.
    Well computer science is considered a branch of science, and it certainly raises many mathematics theories and questions. It definitely is not "anything but."

    Computer "science" is not really science. It is largely technology, and in that regard is closely related to engineering. There are aspects of computer science that are also closely allied with mathematics and formal logic. This is particularly true of the discipline of computational complexity.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket

    The problem with philosophy is that while it questions everything it is more concerned iwth discourse than with ever reaching a concluison. There is a tendency for endless debate on subjects that are irrelevant to nearly everything.

    "There is no position so ridiculous that it has not been held by some philosopher." – Cicero
    These are both its advantages and its disadvantages. If you keep a philosopher around, then you won't arrive at any conclusions hastily. However, if you put philosophers in charge, then you won't arrive at any conclusions at all.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket

    The problem with philosophy is that while it questions everything it is more concerned iwth discourse than with ever reaching a concluison. There is a tendency for endless debate on subjects that are irrelevant to nearly everything.

    "There is no position so ridiculous that it has not been held by some philosopher." – Cicero
    These are both its advantages and its disadvantages. If you keep a philosopher around, then you won't arrive at any conclusions hastily. However, if you put philosophers in charge, then you won't arrive at any conclusions at all.
    This is hardly an advantage or disadvantage. The fact is that philosophers do come to conclusions. Their theories, however, can't fully be agreed upon by the philosophical community as can mathematics and science. Philosophy doesn't need this, however. The point to philosophy is that, like such things as religion or your diet, you can choose which author's philosophy to follow or develop your own.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    grail search
    Posts
    811
    string theory merely is a chord, a metaphor at best, that aims to hold the ring itself of time, that convoluted loop of discussion in this forum (so it would seem).

    Of course string theory is philosophy. Any "theory" essentially is a philosophy. When a theory is proven, then that theory becomes mathematics. Science is merely a bridge between philosophy and mathematics, the process of a philosophy becomming a mathematical fact.






    .
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    37
    What's a string? If you believe in subatomic particles, and space time, strings are the 4 dimensional lines that particles take, when you consider the space time to be a "snapshot". Since space is expanding, it is better to call string theory, "cone theory", or "hypersphere-cone" theory. Which I believe brings us to the space-time invariant, which is an equation for such a mathematical object. Now our science is only 100 years old.

    The smart idea however, behind string theory, is to find equations that predict what particles are doing. I have some equations on the conservation of position and movement which are backed up by my own experiment. Which is a tantamount to saying I have made progress in "string" theory. Maybe I will be in line for a Nobel Prize again.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •