Question for the Scientists

[wavelength]

Would you say the following statements are true or false:

1.) There is at least one philosophy of science.
2.) A scientifc theory is (nothing more than) a mathematical model.
3.) A scientific theory can never be proven.

When following the philosophy of science confined by 2 and 3,
4.) we cannot say what time (or space) actually is.
5.) the question of existance has no meaning.
6.) we cannot determine what is real.

----

Addition Feb. 22, 2008: For all those, who want to join in:

To be able to answer with Yes or No, just assume for each vague term used in the statements your definition of it. Terms like e.g. existance, reality, etc.

You can add your definition of the terms in question, if you want to.

Or if you think a specific statement makes no sense at all - no matter how the terms are defined - that's also a possible answer.

[MMC78]

Would you say the following statements are true or false:

1.) There is at least one philosophy of science.
2.) A scientifc theory is (nothing more than) a mathematical model.
3.) A scientific theory can never be proven.

When following the philosophy of science confined by 2 and 3,
4.) we cannot say what time (or space) actually is.
5.) the question of existance has no meaning.
6.) we cannot determine what is real.

No longer a scientist by trade but I'm still a science enthusiast.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by #1 but it doesn't seem material to the argument.

#4 I see how you're concluding point 4 from 2 and 3 and I'll agree.  However the only necessary meaning space or matter has to me is its material behavior (as best approximated by science).

#5 Existence is ill defined in my mind.  Can you give me a reasonable definition?

#6 Related to #5 somewhat.  What does being real mean?

[Nordic Superman]

Would you say the following statements are true or false:

1.) There is at least one philosophy of science.
2.) A scientifc theory is (nothing more than) a mathematical model.
3.) A scientific theory can never be proven.

When following the philosophy of science confined by 2 and 3,
4.) we cannot say what time (or space) actually is.
5.) the question of existance has no meaning.
6.) we cannot determine what is real.

1) Huh
2) & 3) Scientific theory basically is a score of probability. Scientific theories can be credited with probabilities almost hitting 1.
4) We can say/theorize what time and space are with varying degrees of probability

e.g. it's highly probable that the force of gravity effects time or it's highly improbable the space is filled with strawberry jelly.
5) Hmm
6) I disagree with this, as would most level headed people. I hat it when twats say things like: "you say this is a can of coke, but is it really a can of coke?"

[wavelength]

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by #1

OK, I'll be more specific then. Would you say the statement 1a: "My philosophy of science is Positivism" make any sense? Positivism is basically what I have layed out here with my questions.
 

#5 Existence is ill defined in my mind.  Can you give me a reasonable definition?
#6 Related to #5 somewhat.  What does being real mean?

OK, I'll rephrase. Are statements 5 and 6 true according to your definition of existance / reality?

[Nordic Superman]

So are 2 and 3 true or false?

So 4 is false, since it is not true that we can say absolutely nothing about what time and space really are?

Let's be more specific, what about the statement 6a: "We cannot determine what is real, all we can do is find which mathematical models describe the world".

Very interesting answers so far, keep em comming!

2) & 3) Maybe both true.

4) We can not say for certain what anything is as a scientist. Like I said, answers can be given in values only of probability.

For example... I can say, with a probability extremely close to 1 that you will not fall through the Earth whilst walking through it.

But based on certain theories describing the behaviour of atoms and other such minute particles given enough time (almost eternity) the atoms will align themselves in such a way that you would fall through the Earth.

We can describe what space and time are/is with varying degrees of probability. E.g. the probabilty that time is distorted by large masses via gravity is encroaching towards 1.

5) Maybe I do agree to some extent with: "all we can do is find which mathematical models describe the world"

[wavelength]

4) We can not say for certain what anything is as a scientist. Like I said, answers can be given in values only of probability.

For example... I can say, with a probability extremely close to 1 that you will not fall through the Earth whilst walking through it.

But based on certain theories describing the behaviour of atoms and other such minute particles given enough time (almost eternity) the atoms will align themselves in such a way that you would fall through the Earth.

We can describe what space and time are/is with varying degrees of probability. E.g. the probabilty that time is distorted by large masses via gravity is encroaching towards 1.

OK, so statement 4 is to radical, better would be:
we can say what time is but only with a certain propability
?

[Nordic Superman]

OK, so statement 4 is to radical, better would be:
we can say what time is but only with a certain propability
?

Well I'm not 100% sure; but I guess we can say what aspects of time are with a certain probability. One aspect being the example I gave in regards to gravity.

Just like evolution, I can say, not for certain, but with a probability encroaching on 1 that it is the method of how we became to be.

Most of these probabilities are so close to 1 that in day to day life they might as well be fact.

[wavelength]

Well I'm not 100% sure; but I guess we can say what aspects of time are with a certain probability. One aspect being the example I gave in regards to gravity.

Just like evolution, I can say, not for certain, but with a probability encroaching on 1 that it is the method of how we became to be.

Most of these probabilities are so close to 1 that in day to day life they might as well be fact.

OK, this would mean that there actually are different aspects of time, not just the scientific ones? Or are you talking about different scientific aspects of time, all of which can be tackled scientifically?

Just curious, I like exact statements.

[Deicide]

OK, this would mean that there actually are different aspects of time, not just the scientific ones? Or are you talking about different scientific aspects of time, all of which can be tackled scientifically?

Just curious, I like exact statements.

Exact Statements.Exact Statements.Exact Statements.

[Nordic Superman]

OK, this would mean that there actually are different aspects of time, not just the scientific ones? Or are you talking about different scientific aspects of time, all of which can be tackled scientifically?

Just curious, I like exact statements.

Sorry, what I actually meant is... if you cut up the properties of time, almost like a cake. A property (slice) is that time is effected by mass / gravity.

[wavelength]

Exact Statements.Exact Statements.Exact Statements.

 

What's your opinion on the statements?

[wavelength]

Sorry, what I actually meant is... if you cut up the properties of time, almost like a cake. A property (slice) is that time is effected by mass / gravity.

Get it. But are all of these slices scientific slices (which can be tackled scientifically), or are there also slices that cannot be discussed scientifically?

[ToxicAvenger]

Would you say the following statements are true or false:

1.) There is at least one philosophy of science.

ok

2.) A scientifc theory is (nothing more than) a mathematical model.

ok

3.) A scientific theory can never be proven.

yes but they can be tested and the results shown to provide evidence in support of the theory. Gravity is a theory...now go ahead and jump up..you fall back down to earth..hence proof supporting the theory.
also if i jump up i also fall back down to earth..soo proof from 2 independent sources confirm the results.


When following the philosophy of science confined by 2 and 3,

4.) we cannot say what time (or space) actually is.

no we cant say exactly what anything is but we can elaborate a theory and test independently and confirm results..

5.) the question of existence has no meaning.

what does this has to do with the above?  its a generalized statement from your perspective..i dont see the relevance

6.) we cannot determine what is real.

we cannot absolutely determine what is real....but we can conduct experiments and infer dammed precise results.

[Nordic Superman]

Get it. But are all of these slices scientific slices (which can be tackled scientifically), or are there also slices that cannot be discussed scientifically?

I believe everything can and should be discussed scientifically.

[wavelength]

yes but they can be tested and the results shown to provide evidence in support of the theory. Gravity is a theory...now go ahead and jump up..you fall back down to earth..hence proof supporting the theory.
also if i jump up i also fall back down to earth..soo proof from 2 independent sources confirm the results.

But still the theory of a gravitational field, describing the motion cannot be proven, so 3 is true? Or would you say 3 is too radical and one should say: a scientific theory can be proven, but only empirically?

no we cant say exactly what anything is but we can elaborate a theory and test independently and confirm results.

OK, so 4 is true?

what does this has to do with the above?  its a generalized statement from your perspective..i dont see the relevance

OK, so you would say, statement 5 is much to generalized and cannot be derived from 2 and 3? How about a more specific statement 5a: "The question 'do e.g. more than 3 spacial dimensions really exist' has no meaning.".

Any other (both established or modern) scientific concept could of course also be inserted here.

we cannot absolutely determine what is real....but we can conduct experiments and infer dammed precise results.

So is it possible to scientifically say anything about reality or not?

[wavelength]

I believe everything can and should be discussed scientifically.

OK, but if all aspects of time can be scientifically discussed and layed out, the sum of all these aspects must be what time is, since there is no other aspect left, which could not be scientifically tackled. In this case however, we would have to come to the conclusion, that statement 4 is false, correct? Or at least it must be reduced to the less radical statement I made in Reply #6.

[ToxicAvenger]

But still the theory of a gravitational field, describing the motion cannot be proven, so 3 is true? Or would you say 3 is too radical and one should say: a scientific theory can be proven, but only empirically?

OK, so 4 is true?

OK, so you would say, statement 5 is much to generalized and cannot be derived from 2 and 3? How about a more specific statement 5a: "The question 'do e.g. more than 3 spacial dimensions really exist' has no meaning.".

Any other (both established or modern) scientific concept could of course also be inserted here.

So is it possible to scientifically say anything about reality or not?

i'm not gonna argue....too lazy..anyhow i think roger penrose's work might interest you


http://www.consciousentities.com/penrose.htm

[wavelength]

i'm not gonna argue....too lazy..anyhow i think roger penrose's work might interest you
http://www.consciousentities.com/penrose.htm

No problem, it wasn't really an argument up to now, I just want to sort out opinions and reduce inaccuracies in statements. I would still be interested in your position regarding statement 5.

That's the Roger Penrose who is a buddy of Stephen Hawking, right? Would you say Penrose agrees to the original statements or oppose them?

[Nordic Superman]

OK, but if all aspects of time can be scientifically discussed and layed out, the sum of all these aspects must be what time is, since there is no other aspect left, which could not be scientifically tackled. In this case however, we would have to come to the conclusion, that statement 4 is false, correct? Or at least it must be reduced to the less radical statement I made in Reply #6.

Sorry, I'm talking about being tackled by science.

Every aspect of time, space, evolution should be tackled by science and discussed in a scientific matter. I believe this is a requirement of man kind.

I like to believe everything will one day be explained with a high degree of probability by science, but I'm not stating that it will be.

[wavelength]

For all those, who want to join in:

To be able to answer with Yes or No, just assume for each vague term used in the statements your definition of it. Terms like e.g. existance, reality, etc.

You can add your definition of the terms in question, if you want to.

Or if you think a specific statement makes no sense at all - no matter how the terms are defined - that's also a possible answer.

[wavelength]

#4 I see how you're concluding point 4 from 2 and 3 and I'll agree.  However the only necessary meaning space or matter has to me is its material behavior (as best approximated by science).

Seems a little bit contradictory to me.
If there is no other meaning to time and space for you, quite obviously science can say what it is. Simply because there is nothing left of it (time and space), we could not say anything about.
So you should say statement 4 is false, right?

[wavelength]

bump

[Deicide]

bump

Du und dein immerwaehrender, jedoch unbeweisbarer Glaube an die christliche Gottheit...

[wavelength]

Du und dein immerwaehrender, jedoch unbeweisbarer Glaube an die christliche Gottheit...

And again, point missed. It's like we never had a giant thread about this issue.
How about answering the questions?