I was about to write the same! — Thunderballs

Careful of contrarian ideas, or you'll end up on the moderators radar. :scream:

Okay maybe we did touch on Reich. :cool: — Caldwell

What does the sunglassed smiley mean?

Careful of contrarian ideas, or you'll end up on the moderators radar. — Wheatley

Gotcha! :smile:

Not sure if I even have the stamina at this point. Just try to read through the thread. — Caldwell

Absolutely no intention in doing so. Not interested in laziness. Sorry.

bye bye

Absolutely no intention in doing so. Not interested in laziness. Sorry. — I like sushi

Sorry to disappoint. :meh:

I was asking questions about decay. I am not sure if you are seconding my questions or disagreeing with something or.....

So, what's an example from another discipline in science? What is the general rule broken or mispractice of Bohr?

The decay of science brought scientists to the point of burning scientific books. In a NY garbage incinerator!!!

So, what's an example from another discipline in science? What is the general rule broken or mispractice of Bohr? — Bylaw

Why you think Bohr broke a rule? Isn't rule breaking required to make substatial progress?

Science is a self-correcting system. — Wheatley

Science isn't a self-correcting system though, because it needs guidance from theory and hypothesis, which are derived from sources non-scientific, like metaphysics.

Guess who the front-men are. Bohr, for example. — Caldwell

Well, I don't know so much about Nils Bohr and his philosophy, but basically what to me his theories look like to be grounded on is logical empirism or logical positivism. That could explain the idea of taking an experiment and then describing your whole philosophy around the outcomes of that experiment. A rather positivist way to do science I would say. Of course there's a huge difference between the physics and then the philosophical implications we give to it.

I'm not so familiar what was the link between Bohr and the decay of science, even if I tried to look at your comments several pages back.

I think what is meant that Bohr didn't address the Nature of reality anymore. It's that in which science, physics in particular, is (normally) interested. Instead Bohr had that positive "shut up and calculate" attitude. Only what we know matters. So he preaches.

I think what is meant that Bohr didn't address the Nature of reality anymore. It's that in which science, physics in particular, is (normally) interested. Instead Bohr had that positive "shut up and calculate" attitude. Only what we know matters. So he preaches. — Thunderballs

Well, basically logical empirism / logical positivism is that "shut up and calculate" attitude. Logical positivists put the data, the experiment, on a pedestal. At worst, it becomes a worship. The problem is that people can forget that it's just a model. In other words the model used starts to be the reality.

The problem is that people can forget that it's just a model. In other words the model used starts to be the reality. — ssu

You mean the model of lògical positivism?

I don't think he did. I am asking someone else. I think he has been saying that science way decaying because of what Bohr asserted, assumed or did? I could be wrong but I think that is what

HE

is asserting and I am asking him about it. I am trying to find out about hisposition.


As I tried to indicate here....

↪Thunderballs
I was asking questions about decay. I am not sure if you are seconding my questions or disagreeing with something or.....

Precisely my point, if you'll review my earlier remarks. But even in the macro orbits are counter-intuitive. But in particle physics the Newtonian distinction between potential and kinetic energy is meaningless, as the distinction matter and energy is unresolvable. Little pyramids don't solve anything any more than they collect "energy". Calls to mind a scene in "Red Dwarf" between Einstein and Euclid. "Always with you it is triangles!" The stark truth of the matter is that electrons seem to vanish, matter and energy, for most of what otherwise should be their orbital path around the nuclei, and nobody's asking what the hell that's all about. My thought is that, energy and matter, they go "dark", i.e. outside calculation and observation. We can't assume it is nothing any more than it is something we can't know of. What we must assume is that it is an issue for thought and a a potential area for speculation to resolve aporia in the model. But are we doing philosophy or physics? Science can never outstrip its premise. The enigma is that where the premise to analysis fails, synthesis begins. Where something "seem real" we can start to think analytically. But the end of analysis is not proof, it is the erosion of the premise. The end of science is where the enigma of synthesis intrudes upon its premise. Physics has spent the past century devising ever-more elaborate strategies for putting off the moment where chaos reigns. But ultimately its only argument for this strategy is that it "seems real".

I was asking questions about decay. I am not sure if you are seconding my questions or disagreeing with something

Im not sure what decay you are looking for...

Science isn't a self-correcting system though, because it needs guidance from theory and hypothesis — Metaphysician Undercover

Where's the logic in that?

Science isn't a self-correcting system though, because it needs guidance from theory and hypothesis
— Metaphysician Undercover
Where's the logic in that? — Wheatley

It means that it is not self-contained.

Science is decay.

You mean the model of lògical positivism? — Thunderballs

Logical positivism is the philosophical school the promotes this thinking. It differs from positivism in that the ultimate basis of knowledge rests upon public experimental verification or confirmation rather than personal experience. Hence the importance of the experiment, document, data. I would describe the school (and others may disagree) as positivists who put a lot of importance to the scientific method.

And of course that seems quite OK and fair. The only problem comes when people, as usual, take this to the extreme and start thinking that when you cannot make the scientific experiment, then those things don't matter so much. Or start to look for things that prove the (usually) mathematical model. Simply putting the cart (scientific model) in front of the horse (curiosity about reality) and then being puzzled how it's not going so well as the other way around.

Where's the logic in that? — Wheatley

Exactly what Thunderballs says, science is not self-contained. The corrections to science don't come from science. Science has provisions for outside influence, in the form of hypotheses and theories which are not scientifically proven, they are metaphysical speculations.

Exactly what Thunderballs says, science is not self-contained. — Metaphysician Undercover

Didn't say that.

It means that it is not self-contained. — Thunderballs

I didn't say that.

You said it is "self-correcting". It is not self-correcting, because the corrections come from outside science, as I explained, and this is allowed for by the fact that science is not self-contained, as T said. Is this difficult for you to understand?

corrections come from outside science — Metaphysician Undercover

Where outside?

Is this difficult for you to understand? — Metaphysician Undercover

It is difficult to understand. :rage:

Did you not read my posts? Metaphysics.

Did you not read my posts? — Metaphysician Undercover

I didn't read.