NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #30/NN_1992_30.iso/spool/sci/physics/21485

Text File | 1992-12-21 | 7.7 KB | 180 lines

Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.philosophy
Path: sparky!uunet!rde!aee!gene
From: [e-mail] (Gene Kochanowsky)
Subject: Re: Religion vs science: two questions, with answers
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Associated Electronic Engineers
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>     <[e-mail]>     <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 08:07:02 GMT
Lines: 168

[e-mail] (Paul A Vixie) writes:

>If you view a system of knowledge as starting from postulates and then going
>into theory and proof and observation, then it is true, as you suggest, that
>one's postulates are not "provable" or even "verifiable" in the usual sense;
>all "proof" depends on the postulates themselves, so proofs would be circular.

I would say that mathematics and possibly philosphy qualifies as a system
of knowledge starting from postulates, but I am not sure that physics, or
science in general, falls into this catagory. I would say that science is
an attempt to find that small core of observations, upon which all other
observations can be deduced, with a model. In addition to this it has a set
of rules that act as referree on the entire process, such as Occam's razor,
peer review, etc. It also has a set of definitions on such things as
observation and measurement. This would make it systematized.

(Websters New Twentieth Century Unabridged)

    sci'ence, n. [Fr. science, from L. scientia,
     knowledge, from sciens (-entis), ppr. of scire,
     to know.]
     1. originally, state of fact of knowing;
     knowledge, often as opposed to intuition,
     belief, etc.
     2. systematized knowledge derived from
     observation, study, and experimentation
     carried on in order to determine the nature or
     principles of what is being studied.
     3. a branch of knowledge or study, especially
     one concerned with establishing and
     systematizing facts, principles, and methods,
     as by experiments and hypotheses; as, the
     science of music.
     4. (a) the systematized knowledge of nature
     and the physical world; (b) any branch of
     this.
     5. skill, technique, or ability based upon
     training, discipline, and experience: often
     somewhat humorous, as the science of boxing.
     6. [S-] Christian Science.
      mental science; mental phylosophy
      moral science; ethics
      seven sciences; in the Middle ages, the seven
      liberal arts constituting the trivium and quadrivium.
      Syn. - literature, art, knowledge.

I would say that my use of the word science would best be described by 2,
3,4a,4b. It would seem that some in this thread are referring to 6, present
company excluded. It is interesting to note the the historical meaning
of science in 1, would automatically put it at odds with religion.

>However, it is possible to "validate" a postulate, which is different from
>"proving" it in that one is not proving that it is "true"; one needs only
>prove that without that postulate, no system of knowledge is possible.  The
>easiest way to do that is to show that all statements contain the unstated
>assumption that such-and-such a postulate is true; any statements to the
>contrary are therefore self-contradictory.

It would seem that if "observations" were substituted for "postulates"
a more correct view of science would be obtained. If a model from an
observation, results in an experiment that contradicts the model, and
the original observations are found to be true, then the model is suspect,
even though the "logic" or "math" of the model is correct. A more
interesting case, is when the results of the model have to date been
found to "agree" with experiment, but may still be incorrect, and not
so much from incorrect observations, but from missing ones (possibly
all current theories).

>Of course, whether you consider "self-contradictory" to be the same as "false"
>depends on your postulates :-).  So this whole argument can't begin until you
>decide that you are looking for a rational explaination of existence et al.
>If you don't want a rational explaination, no postulate will make sense and
>knowledge as such will tend to be somewhat arbitrary, at least by rational
>standards.

Observations and models can be contradictory. That is when all the "fun"
begins, real science takes place, and "leaps" in understanding occur.

>Aristotle, then Aquinas, and more recently Rand, presented basically three
>postulates.  If there is any interest, I will present validations of them.
>Note, though, that although I encountered these postulates and the validations
>of them by reading the works of other philosophers, my understanding of them
>and any explainations I offer of them are my own -- these are _my_ views.

>The postulates, as grist for the mill, are:

>    1. something exists
>    2. any existent has specific identity; it is itself
>    3. i exist, conscious of other things that exist

>Note that these three, by themselves, do not differentiate between existing
>as the dream of another creature, or existing more or less as we "seem" to.
>All that comes later, and are higher-level constructs depending only on
>observations, reason, and the above postulates.  Validation of observation
>and reason are also higher-level constructs.  The above postulates are the
>only things that cannot be "proven" in the system I understand; however, I
>cannot see that any system could exist without these three postulates, and
>I can, as I said earlier, provide "validations" of these postulates if anyone
>is interested.

This is all very interesting, but are you saying that from these you can
predict the trajectory of a ball?

Could it be that you are saying that the above should be added to the
current models of QM, EM, etc.? If this is the case, how would it be done?

Please explain what this has to do with science.

Perhaps a set of assumptions that goes like this might be more
appropriate for science.

Definition:

        Repeatable observable: some set of observable
        measurements that display a pattern, that can
        be made to repeat, by recreating certain conditions
        present at the time of observation. There could
        possibly be a range of time associated with this,
        in other words, the observations may change over
        long time periods, and stay relatively constant
        over shorter periods of time.


Assumptions of Science
The Most Basic

    1. In order for a science to exist, there must
    be repeatable observables

    2. If the kind of repeatability  of some set of
    repeatable observables changes over time, it does so in
    some form that can be modeled. (I think this may be a
    restatement of 1 in some way.)

    The assumptions so far would only yield a sort of catalog
    of phenomena.

Desired

    3. The measurements of some set of repeatable observables
    can be derived from a model based on particular
    circumstances of the situation being observed.

    This is where science is now, however the whole thing
could come crashing down tomorrow, if 1 or 2 were found to be false.

The Most Desired

    4. All measurements of all repeatable observables
    can be derived from a small set of observables and a model,
    taking into account the particular circumstances of the
    situation being observed.

    This for some is the quest, but its outcome is not certain.

Any constructive corrections or comments on this would be appreciated.

>This is all a very far cry from "faith".  I don't have "faith", of the
>philosophic kind (see below, 2a1,2a2,3; I'm equivocating on 2b1,2b2).

I agree.

Gene Kochanowsky
--
Gene Kochanowsky                           | "And remember ....
Associated Electronic Engineers, Inc.      |       The better you look ...
[phone] Voice, [phone] Fax     |       the more you will see."
[e-mail]                               |               Miss Lidia