Comments on: In search of strings and testimonies

By: Clark

Clark — Mon, 16 May 2005 05:01:14 +0000

Anne, I’m afraid I’m not quite sure what you are talking about regarding Evolution. I didn’t mention it here. Could you perhaps expand?

Regarding God moving at the speed of light. If God is embodied then he has mass and can’t go the speed of light.

By: greenfrog

greenfrog — Sat, 14 May 2005 22:15:24 +0000

Thank you.

By: Jim F

Jim F — Sat, 14 May 2005 04:02:11 +0000

Greenfrog (#31): Some important authors are Thomas Kuhn, Imri Lakatos, Ian Hacking, and Larry Lauden. I like Robert Klee's Introduction to Philosophy of Science: Cutting Nature at its Seams. However, I take the point about science requiring a definition of its objects as well as its methods, and the need for measurement from Martin Heidegger's essay, "The Age of the World Picture" (in The Question Concerning Technology) suplemented with other things I've seen in other essays and books. For a good overview of Heidegger's philosophy of science, go to here.

By: B

Fri, 13 May 2005 23:22:15 +0000

I think this post underestimates the respect that others have for LDS believers. (I include myself among the “others.”) Tourists from all over appreciate the hardship of crossing the plains and the work that went into creating the Salt Lake temple, even if they don’t believe in the principles to which the pioneering builders were devoted. Even secularists admire Mormons’ clean living, work ethic, and time devoted to worthwhile endeavors such as scouting and humanitarian work, even if they don’t agree with the motivating beliefs. The tourists and secularists don’t think Mormonism is so unsound that it leads all its followers into unfulfilling, unproductive lives; on the contrary, they recognize that it works well for many people. They just don’t think the LDS beliefs are sound enough to trust their own lives to that path.

This is the same attitude other scientists seem to take toward the string theorists. They wish the string theorists well, admiring their hard work and devotion to what they believe. But they don’t trust string theory enough to want to join them. They’d want convincing evidence before becoming string theorists themselves.

In other words, the people are great but the plan is imperfect.

By: greenfrog

greenfrog — Fri, 13 May 2005 15:57:02 +0000

Thank you. Can you recommend readings for the uninitiated-but-curious?

By: Jim F

Jim F — Fri, 13 May 2005 03:27:26 +0000

Science certainly does that, but it seems a bit much to call everything that does that science. A poet notices that certain words work well together as she writes. She tries them in various combinations and comes to conclusions about which ones work and which ones don’t. Is that also science? Will’s definition of science seems to confuse necessary with sufficient; definitions have to be sufficient–or at least aimed in the direction of sufficiency. To be sufficient, one must also have things like methods, a decision about the objects one investigates (one reason poetry isn’t a science isn’t that it doesn’t deal with scientific objects of any kind), standards of measurement, etc.

It turns out that defining a science is not an easy problem in the philosophy of science, but I don’t think anyone would accept the definition Will has given.

By: greenfrog

greenfrog — Fri, 13 May 2005 02:58:53 +0000

Jim F — why is will’s definition too broad? You make your observation about the possible relationship between your garden plants and the condition of the soil. Sounds like a hypothesis to me. Then you loosen the soil around other plants and notice if they do better than they were doing previously. If they do, you gain confidence in the reliability of your hypothesis. If they don’t, you consider whether your hypothesis was wrong, or if other circumstances (species of plant, extraneous environmental factors, different weather, whatever) might have determined the outcome despite the loosened soil.

How is that not the core of what we label (productively?) as science — the creative formation of an idea explaining an observation, then the shaping of conduct based on that idea, then the observation of the results of the revised actions (“experiment”)?

By: will

will — Thu, 12 May 2005 23:50:44 +0000

Jim, you’re right. I suppose I was referring to science as an epistemological camp, in contrast with faith. Of course, the word is normally used in a much narrower sense.

I think the point I was trying to make is this: When talking about an esoteric, almost gnostic, subject like string theory, we sometimes forget that physicists are people just like us and use essentially the same methods. String theorists use reason to try to unify their observations, just as we do. The main difference is that they’re much more meticulous about it, just as your logical arguments probably tend to be much more strict than my hand-waving ruminations.

By: Jim F

Jim F — Thu, 12 May 2005 23:21:12 +0000

Will, aren’t you using a too-broad definition of science? Surely science doesn’t include all observation and reason that leads to a conclusion. It also includes ontological and theoretical commitments. It requires a standardized method, and accurate mathematical measurement. My observation that the plants in my garden do better when the soil around them is not compacted leads me to the reasonable conclusion that keeping the soil loose will help them grow. But making that observation and coming to that conclusion isn’t science–or almost everything anyone does is science.

By: will

will — Thu, 12 May 2005 22:46:45 +0000

Seth, I submit that science guides your behavior far more than you consciously realize. Whenever you make draw conclusions from observation and reason, or trust others who do so, you’re taking a scientific approach to life.