I would find it very uncomfortable to call "agreement between prediction and outcome" science, as opposed to just a fact about science. — AmadeusD

Science is a method for ascertaining facts about hte world. Facts about science are plainly different things? — AmadeusD

Okay. On the one hand, a fact about the world, say, electrolysis, is different from a science face, say, the scientific method. On the other hand, would you say electrolysis is an artistic fact? We are allowed to segregate facts about the world into different categories, are we not?

I would find it very uncomfortable to call "agreement between prediction and outcome" science, as opposed to just a fact about science. — AmadeusD

So, the science is all in the process of discovering, but the discovery, when made, lies outside of science? This seems to cut off the meaning of the process of discovery from the process itself. This, in turn, seems to artificially separate process from goal. How can you have a logical process for going forward if you have no idea where you're going?

This is a non sequitur that does not relate to the discussion. — AmadeusD

How can this be a non sequitur to a discussion when it responds to a topic you introduced into the discussion?

Picking up the award is not acting a play out. Presenting your findings at a conference is not carrying out experiments under controlled conditions. — AmadeusD

How is it you're not confusing relevance with identity? Give me an argument that shows how an award for an acting performance doesn't relate to the acting performance. How can one thing be an award, i.e., recognition, for another thing it doesn't relate to?

Art has no right/wrong value. It has good/bad value (and subjective, at that). Science is the opposite. It has right/wrong values, and no good/bad values. — AmadeusD

I don't recognize anything in the above in my account. I think you've jumped some massive guns here and landed somewhere entirely alien to both what I've said, and what I intended to convey. — AmadeusD

Let's see if your words on screen can mean something very different from the intentions within your mind:

• Art has no right/wrong value. Art has no moral content, i.e., it makes no value judgments about behaviors of its characters. Or, the effect of art on its patrons cannot be judged morally. Each patron is entitled to his/her emotional response.

• Science...has right/wrong values... Science is only about declarations, and declarations are either true or false. If something is true, it stands apart from moral judgments about its effects on sentient beings.

Can we see, herein, that right and wrong is concerned with what things are, whereas good and bad is concerned with the moral meaning of how things are experienced? — ucarr

No, not at all. I don't actually see how what you've said is at all illustrative of this point, ignoring that I think the point is extremely weak and bordering on nonsensical. — AmadeusD

Things are $\Rightarrow$ facts, or truth.

How sentient beings respond to truth introduces morals. This is the key to the difference between "What" and "How."

Afaik, natural sciences make use of hypothetical-deductive reasoning; "abductive reasoning" is only used to evaluate rival versions of a theory (or rival theories about the same phenomenon). Other non-empirical disciplines in the humanities are mostly hermeneutical. And, imo, "the difference between science & art" is profound (i.e. explanatory (factive) & imaginary (fictive), respectively) even though both are essentially creative endeavors.

"Miracle" here is used casually and sophistically, but the above fact does not leave ample scope for miracles in a Humean sense either. — Lionino

Do you buy the existence of humanity as a miracle of improbability?

I can't work with Quora quotations. — Lionino

Do you deny the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle was worked out as a math inequality?

$pq − qp = h/(2πi)$

Why shouldn't you take Quora quotations individually? It's not a cop-out to assume everyone posting there incompetent? Why are you tethered to the credentials fuss?

This is helpful. If I'm understanding correctly, abductive reasoning is used to determine which of a number of rival theories is the most simple and direct.

...the idea that consciousness is subjective, but science is objective, and therefore we can't have a science about consciousness, conflates two different senses of 'subjective'.

Consciousness is ontologically subjective as it exists only for the one who has it, but that doesn't mean epistemically subjective. We can be conscious of science, and we can have science about the conscious states of individual organisms. — jkop

Can we have science about the conscious states of individual organisms that's epistemically subjective? This question is meant to ask if we can somehow somersault out of objective examination of a thing outside of us (consciousness not our own) into a subjective understanding of it? Sounds like science fiction along the lines of Star Trek's Vulcan mind meld.

And moreover, can we then somehow rationalize subjectivity as objective narration?

Now we see with these questions the profound difference between what science does and what art does. The actor and the writer, through the illusion of omniscient performance/narration, enters the mind of the character and lives that character's life subjectively.

If we want to know what something is, objectively, we turn to science.

If we want to know what it's like, subjectively, to walk a mile in another person's shoes, we turn to art.

These are two profoundly different states: the "what" versus the "how."

:up:

a fact about the world, say, electrolysis, — ucarr

Unfortunately, this seems to have ignored the vast majority of what I've said, and run right into the same confusion i teased apart earlier (agreement/disagreement notwithstanding).

Electrolysis is a method for achieving the aim of (usually) electroplating metals. The resulting object would be a fact about the world (or, just to give related examples " X is currently electrolysing Y". A description of the process would be "science about science" where the fact that the process does what it does would be a "science fact". So, you can tease this into:
Electrolysis can destroy follicles achieving an aesthetic hairlessness - A fact about science. In this case, the science of aesthetic electrolysis. It can be gleaned from the basic observation of watching hte process happen.

However, "electrolysis(in this context) is the process of destroying hair follicles by running a charge through a tiny wire under the skin (and all the rest)... " is science fact. It's a description of a scientific process not apprehendable by bare observation. It requires the scientific method to deduce. THe former does not(though, you can argue that both are simply the same thing at different levels - I think we know what we're talking about. If not, Okay - we have more work to do between us :P )

We are allowed to segregate facts about the world into different categories, are we not? — ucarr

Sure. My point is to say that some facts in science are 'theoretical' not instantiated anywhere in-and-of themselves. The speed of light would be one. Whereas, "light takes x time from Sun to Earth" is fact, borne from the scientific method, that stands alone, instantiated "perfectly" in an aspect of the world.

the discovery, when made, lies outside of science? — ucarr

I think this is a slight misstatement, but overall, yes, I'd agree. The hair curler is not an object of science, as eg. But how it works, is (well, assuming that's a relatively settled description lol... I don't know it).

How can this be a non sequitur to a discussion when it responds to a topic you introduced into the discussion? — ucarr

Not so. What you brought up was the "meaningless"ness of the Tony Awards, without the performances they are given. This seems both incoherent (they are interdependent - teh awards are not given for no performance) and a non sequitur, because I made no comment at all abouthe meaningfulness of something. "The Tony Awards" still means "The Tony Awards" if no performances have been considered. They just will not be awarded to anyone. And so you can (hopefully) now see, that you brought in something I did not intend to be spoken about. My intention was to point out that The Tony Awards do not consist in the performances in any respect. They simple are not given sans performances. "meaningful"ness isn't relevant, as best I can tell. It's confusing meaning with meaningful.

How is it you're not confusing relevance with identity? Give me an argument that shows how an award for an acting performance doesn't relate to the acting performance.How can one thing be an award, i.e., recognition, for another thing it doesn't relate to? — ucarr

You are not responding to what I've said. Obviously the award relates to the performance for which it is given. My saying "I am a legal executive" relates to my legal training. They are not, in any way, overlapping elements of the world. A baseball cap is related to the manufacture process, but they are not at all the same thing. I think its possible you are confusing identity and relevance - yet reversing the onus of clarity. It certainly feels that way in your posts. For hte bolded above, I think I'll need to you pedantically explain how you got to that question. I dont assent to it, because it doesn't relate to what I've said, on my terms. I cannot answer, because it appears irrelevant and asks me to defend something I did not say.

Art has no right/wrong value. Art has no moral content — ucarr

No. This is not correct(not quite relevant here), nor the right extrapolation of what i've said. What I've said relates to the fact that you cannot, as an artist or otherwise, call a piece of art "right or wrong". You can only indicate whether, by your subjective lights, its "good or bad". This distinction does not remove moral content. It removes the ability to judge art morally. They are very separate things.
You can, as a scientist or otherwise, call a scientific proposition "right or wrong" (i suppose this is getting to t vs T, so maybe if so we should shut it down there for another time to avoid getting weedy). You cannot call it "good or bad". Where that happens, people are using art criticism to impugn scientific validity (think Charles Murray. His actual robustness isn't relevant. the Bell Curve was judged like an exegesis). And then where people proclaim art is "bad art" they are trying to use scientific judgment schemes such as "correct" or "accurate" which is not apt.

So, with this clarity, I see that what i wrote means precisely what I had intended it to :)

Things are ⇒
⇒
facts, or truth. — ucarr

I'm unsure I agree to this. Some things are feelings. Some things are ranges. Some things are variations. Some things are multiply realized. There are pieces of art which contain scientific facts as a basis for their aesthetic quality. But only on analysis would this become obvious, and you'd assess that basis with scientific rigour, but hte piece of art overall with a critic's scheme. Truth isn't relevant to the overall picture, but it may be that the truth of the included science fact is relevant to the aesthetic of the wider piece. This changes nought here, just quite an interesting little conceptual russian doll.

How sentient beings respond to truth introduces morals. — ucarr

I outright reject this, unless what you're getting at is that somehow we can inherently tell shit from shinola. I don't think that's the case, and I think morals mainly come from reacting to events and feelings that follow them. Sometimes they are assented to on a social basis, rather than an analysis of any kind - but mostly, truth isn't relevant to morality Imo unless you're after an objective morality, which I reject.

I'm unsure of the meaning of "cross-culturalism" in this context. — ucarr

Science, the method, transcends culture. No, it is not a 'Western' idea, it is not 'chauvanistic' to think careful observation and measurement is how we come to robust conclusions about hte world. It works wherever it is carried out, and in whatever context.

The social sciences do not respond this way to the world. Carrying out an analysis of, let's say, gender divisions, will require different methodologies among the Objibwe, in Mali, in Dublin, in Tehran etc.. etc... You can't carry the same assumptions around with you to get accurate data. But you can with 'science'. Publishing though - ooof. The same compartmentalisation and disagreements occur there.

It's not the case simplicity of theory is a strategy for achieving the best outcomes? — ucarr

Of course. You're, again, conflating two quite different inferences. The outcomes don't matter. The method for getting there does. But carrying out hte method correctly means "so be it" as regards the outcome. You seem to be confusing relevance and identity *wink wink*.

I don't think the outcomes of cancer research are matters of indifference to the researchers. — ucarr

as researchers they, at least, should be. You cannot aim at an outcome. You do the work. THe outcome is as it is. Researchers are human though, so obviously they're going to care. This is conflation, again.

Are the plays of Shakespeare culture bound? — ucarr

100% they are culture bound - but I'm unsure I get what you're asking, because this seems silly and you're not. They are based in 16th century Europe. Written in Middle English and refer to humour, politics (geo as well as local), social interactions and institutions of the time. They are completely culture-bound. That other cultures enjoy Shakespeare is a different fact with different interpretations. It could simply be the force of colonialism has hoodwinked other cultures into giving a toss. Who knows. A different conversation. (I suppose what one might want to say here, is that those plays are culture-bound but the themes are not. But then, they will exist in some cultures and not others, so still culture-bound but if a different way).

The culture-bound, policy-driving forces of Mein Kampf aren't a problem? — ucarr

You're confusing a political (practical) problem with an accounting problem. My descriptions of those two modes of (lets just say) are not problematic. Mein Kampf, ironically, instantiates perfectly what I mean by the distinction - the Bell Curve vs Mein Kampf.

Pseudo-intellectualism is looking like the most probably explanation of this person's writing. — I like sushi

That seems a bit much to me. I think confusing similar concepts is enough to explain. ucarr appears very thoughtful to me, and wanting to engage - I tend to see a lack of wanting to engage with pseudo-intellectualism (couple of other threads active rn are dead-on examples). I tend favour incompetence instead of maliciousness or deceptiveness to explain these things :P Perhaps I'm a bit sanguine as to this.

No, science is not epistemically subjective. Opinions are, for example, my opinion that 'classic jazz is better than hip-hop' is epistemically subjective.

If could be that my opinion is not just an opinion but refers to my actual experiences of classic jazz and hip-hop. We can research and compare the mental states that arise when I listen to the two styles of music, e.g. notice if my toes tap to the rhythms, check my dopamine levels, brain activity etc. and correlate the results with my reports. That's possible science about phenomena in an ontologically subjective domain.

We can also research the ontologically objective properties of the two styles of music, e.g. their structure, complexity, harmony, etc. and find out that jazz differs from hip-hop in many ways that have correlations to my behaviour and reports.

:up:

That seems a bit much to me. I think confusing similar concepts is enough to explain. ucarr appears very thoughtful to me, and wanting to engage - I tend to see a lack of wanting to engage with pseudo-intellectualism (couple of other threads active rn are dead-on examples). I tend favour incompetence instead of maliciousness or deceptiveness to explain these things :P Perhaps I'm a bit sanguine as to this. — AmadeusD

The two can be mutually exclusive.

Maybe this person is just trying to approach something extremely obscure. Kudos to them then. Whatever is going on here I see nothing in it for me. Maybe on a another topic they can discuss in a more fluid and succinct manner, or maybe not.

Have fun all :)

We can research and compare the mental states that arise when I listen to the two styles of music, e.g. notice if my toes tap to the rhythms, check my dopamine levels, brain activity etc. and correlate the results with my reports. That's — jkop

Will they ever be able to say "the firing of this specific number of these neurons in this part of the brain will produce this specific intensity of this emotion"? Sure, some feelings are great and others bad, but a lot of this is subjective. Sometimes i'll feel two different feelings while making a choice and they feel equally strong yet I definitely want one over the other for which reason i have no explanation. Sometimes a bad feeling can feel kind of good, and vice versa. Again, i think it's too subjective to pin down exactly, despite the dream of certain brain scientists.

Do you buy the existence of humanity as a miracle of improbability? — ucarr

That is the fine-tuning problem and most secular philosophers don't think it is a miracle (I am taking "miracle" here to mean intelligent design or sheer chance (~40%)).

Do you deny the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle was worked out as a math inequality? — ucarr

No. The HUP still is not about the "limits of quantised physical interactions". It has a clear physical meaning. There is no connection between Gödel and Heisenberg besides that they are meta about their respective fields (Gödel's more than Heisenberg's).

It's not a cop-out to assume everyone posting there incompetent? — ucarr

My issue is not with Quora, but more that you don't seem to be competent with physics in a way that you are in a position to judge good from bad in non-authoritative sources.

Will they ever be able to say "the firing of this specific number of these neurons in this part of the brain will produce this specific intensity of this emotion"? — Gregory

No, each brain is unique. Vastly 'more unique' than the differences between our fingerprints.* Rough generalizations are a more realistic expectation.

*Edit: Talking about human brains. (In before some pedant brings up C. Elegans.)

Electrolysis — AmadeusD

Just using electric current to split molecules.

Agreed, it is mostly gibberish.

I tend favour incompetence instead of maliciousness or deceptiveness to explain these things — AmadeusD

I'm sure you are right, at least in a forum like this.

My issue is not with Quora, but more that you don't seem to be competent with physics in a way that you are in a position to judge good from bad in non-authoritative sources. — Lionino

I do understand how annoying it can be when someone pronounces authoritatively about something I know about but they clearly don't. It is particularly tempting in philosophy because the range of competence one would like to have is way beyond what is possible for most human beings. The big difficulty is that one has to have competence in a field in order to assess how authoritative a source is.

The sciences are concerned with “what,” whereas the humanities are concerned with “how.” — ucarr

This was an interesting attempt at the same sort of distinction. Every subject asks "What, Where, When" (and sometimes "Who") and so it is tempting to go for a distinction in terms of subject-matter. "How" and "Why" are traditionally (in philosophy) used to distinguish between causal and rational explanations, so they look like a good basis for distinguishing between science and the rest. But ordinary use does not follow the Aristotelian distinction between efficient and final causes, so I doubt if there's any mileage in this.

Yes, it means that science is an epistemic domain governed by a justification method. It really does not matter what exactly it is about as long as the justification method of testability can successfully be applied.
The same is true for mathematics. It is the epistemic domain governed by the justification method of axiomatic provability.
The humanities, on the other hand, are not an epistemic domain. They are a (collection of) subject domain(s). The humanities are generally about human behavior. — Tarskian

I liked this. I agree that most disciplines are partly characterized by their domains of authority and partly by the methods they adopt. There's a link between the two, which helps.

I notice that you don't mention the justification method for the humanities. That might be because they don't all have the same justification method. But I'm sure you'll agree that they do have justification methods - just not the same ones as mathematics and the sciences. (I assume that you count literature, history and philosophy among them.)

The human sciences (psychology, sociology, economics) are particularly interesting cases because they all have the same domain and their appropriate methodologies are not clear. (In philosophy jargon, they straddle the hard problem, and so are likely to end up having to decide how to solve it or dissolve it.)

Should we not apply the some version of the same structure (domain plus method) to the arts (performing and otherwise), not to mention the various professional (law, medicine, business, accountancy etc.) and applied (engineering, architecture, medicine) subjects and the unclassifiable subjects like politics and theology?

The big difficulty is that one has to have competence in a field in order to assess how authoritative a source is — Ludwig V

In practice, that is not true. Competence in the field is not required, just common sense. A physics textbook by a professor from Utretch, used in physics courses internationally, is authoritative, a researcher's blogspot is not.

I don't need to know neuroscience to have the common sense to not take at face value a research paper (which isn't made for laymen) from 2011 with 2 citations and 1 no-name researcher.

The big difficulty is that one has to have competence in a field in order to assess how authoritative a source is. — Ludwig V

Concerning original research, it depends on whether the subject has a standard justification method.

In mathematics, it does not matter who exactly proposes a theorem. The only thing that matters, is that the proof is unobjectionable. In science, it does not matter who proposes a scientific claim. The only thing that matters, is that it is supported by a reproducible experimental test report. Other fields may have other objective justification methods.

If the field does not have an objective justification method, then such original research is not a knowledge claim to begin with. In that case, no publication by whoever is authoritative.

In that sense, we can say that: if who makes the claim matters, then what he claims cannot possibly matter.

I don't need to know neuroscience to have the common sense to not take at face value a research paper (which isn't made for laymen) from 2011 with 2 citations and 1 no-name researcher. — Lionino

They call it common sense for a reason. It relies for its validity on normative conventions, which are a mixed blessing. They allow for social cohesion at the expensive of the intelligibility of novel insights, especially in less conventionally oriented fields like philosophy. Sometimes what is needed is uncommon sense. As Heidegger wrote “ …a philosophy is creatively grasped at the earliest 100 years after it arises.”

In practice, that is not true. Competence in the field is not required, just common sense. — Lionino

Competence is over-stating it, I agree. But you are expecting more from common sense than it will deliver.

A physics textbook by a professor from Utretch, used in physics courses internationally, is authoritative, a researcher's blogspot is not. — Lionino

Certainly. But I'm not Joe Public, who will say "If it is by a professor, it must be right and anything from a university is OK. Where is Utrecht? How do I find out which courses it's used on? Didn't someone once tell me that science textbooks are always out of date by the time they are printed?"

I don't need to know neuroscience to have the common sense to not take at face value a research paper (which isn't made for laymen) from 2011 with 2 citations and 1 no-name researcher. — Lionino

That may be common sense to you and common sense to me. But it doesn't follow that it is common sense to everyone.

In that sense, we can say that: if who makes the claim matters, then what he claims cannot possibly matter. — Tarskian

Ideally, I would do all experiments myself. But life's too short. I'm sure you agree.

If the field does not have an objective justification method, then such original research is not a knowledge claim to begin with. In that case, no publication by whoever is authoritative. — Tarskian

Well, that's clear enough. What do you do for fun?

Will they ever be able to say "the firing of this specific number of these neurons in this part of the brain will produce this specific intensity of this emotion"? — Gregory

One doesn't have to be a scientist, nor to study the neurons in my brain, to be able to say what will produce this specific intensity of this emotion when I taste a piece of chili pepper. It's the chili pepper!

Sometimes i'll feel two different feelings while making a choice and they feel equally strong yet I definitely want one over the other for which reason i have no explanation. — Gregory

Right, we sometimes form opinions and make choices in haphazard, thoughtless ways, by habit, or by going with the flow, relying on herd intelligence, or we have inherited dispositions to chose this over that, or there's social pressure, fashion etc.

But you are expecting more from common sense than it will deliver. — Ludwig V

I don't know, my common sense has delivered to me consistently.

But it doesn't follow that it is common sense to everyone. — Ludwig V

Well, yeah. Democratisation of knowledge wasn't the best blessing to this world. Now we have literal idiots on Twitter quoting psychometric papers to prove their case when they don't even know what a p-value is, and unfortunately such rubbish gets exposed to thousands of naïve people. But it is not like those people matter in the big picture often, so it is not too bad.

Didn't someone once tell me that science textbooks are always out of date by the time they are printed? — Ludwig V

Science books? Sometimes. Textbooks? That would defeat the purpose. Joe must exercise his common sense.

More specifically, when it comes to Joe Public, he has no business touching research papers or textbooks or things of the sort. Most people can't solve a basic quadratic equation, and have never really heard of Kant.

Democratisation of knowledge wasn't the best blessing to this world. Now we have literal idiots on Twitter quoting psychometric papers to prove their case when they don't even know what a p-value is, and unfortunately such rubbish gets exposed to thousands of naïve people. But it is not like those people matter in the big picture often, so it is not too bad. — Lionino

H'm. In respect of physics, you may be right. In respect of other matters, I'm not so sure. We all worry about fake news, don't we? This is where it originates. And it matters.

Science books? Sometimes. Textbooks? That would defeat the purpose. Joe must exercise his common sense. — Lionino

I wouldn't dream of contradicting you. But it was a comment from a guy who qualified in physics before switching to philosophy (of science) for his Master's. He also told me that everything in the physics A-Level (School leaving) syllabus was false.

I don't know, my common sense has delivered to me consistently. — Lionino

You were fortunate. Mine was not. I had some nasty awakenings when I was young. I'm still very sceptical about what common sense tells me. But then, I'm also sceptical about what everyone tells me.

Democratisation of knowledge wasn't the best blessing to this world. — Lionino

Well, the world before the enlightenment ideal was not exactly ideal either.

More specifically, when it comes to Joe Public, he has no business touching research papers or textbooks or things of the sort. Most people can't solve a basic quadratic equation, and have never really heard of Kant. — Lionino

Perhaps part of the trouble is that many researchers are anxious to spread their news as widely as possible. Whether they are after fame or fortune or just research grants, I wouldn't know.

He also told me that everything in the physics A-Level (School leaving) syllabus was false. — Ludwig V

A-level are the last years of basic schooling isn't it? That sounds very wrong, but I don't know what they taught in Britain back in his time. Classical mechanics is still true, and it is taught in schools, generally correctly.

Perhaps part of the trouble is that many researchers are anxious to spread their news as widely as possible. — Ludwig V

I don't see that. I don't see researchers going on Youtube or Twitter to talk about their research, they are usually too busy for that. It is usually the university's journal (sometimes written by students) that writes the news pieces. Then we have MSM reporting on it, which is the bottom of the barrel.

As of yet, I am still unsure what you are saying and starting to think that you do not really have a clear idea of what you mean due to misapplication of terms and heuristic bias. — I like sushi

If we want to know what something is, objectively, we turn to science.

If we want to know what it's like, subjectively, to walk a mile in another person's shoes, we turn to art.

These are two profoundly different states: the "what" versus the "how." — ucarr

These are clear statements of: my subject: How science and art differ; and of my premise: science and art, modally speaking ("What" vs "How"), differ profoundly.

Where's the connection between I like sushi's criticism and what I've written?

I have a feeling you are confusing yourself by interchanging Why, How and What without appreciating that they are ALL What questions. This then lead to you holding to How for one line of questioning where it suits you whilst holding to Why for another (even though - to repeat - they are BOTH What questions). — I like sushi

I acknowledged this overlap long ago. Now, it's your turn to argue the point that overlap obliterates difference.

Discovery of "what" is rooted in the predication of the fact of existing things.

Discovery of "how" is rooted in the adverbial modification of the predication of the fact of existing things. This adverbial modification elaborates both the effect and the affect of the fact of existing things. To the main point, "how" drags consciousness into the frame of the lens of discovery. — ucarr

In my conversation with I like sushi, I have failed in my attempts to do a logical mapping from his critical comments -- as with the two samples of his comments quoted above -- to evidence in my writing that validates the comments.[/quote]

When he challenges me to make a definitive statement of my subject and premise, I present them. He doesn't respond to what I presented.

When he charges me with conflating "What" and "How," I make statements clarifying their difference. Also, I ask him to support his implication that two things that overlap partially cannot also have differences. He doesn't present what I ask for.

Now he avoids his responsibilities as a critic by abandoning the conversation.

Thanks for the elaboration.

That sounds very wrong, but I don't know what they taught in Britain back in his time. — Lionino

I think that he was pulling my leg by exaggerating the facts. We didn't know each other very well at the time. But you see how easy it is to get the wrong end of the stick.

I don't see researchers going on Youtube or Twitter to talk about their research, they are usually too busy for that. It is usually the university's journal (sometimes written by students) that writes the news pieces. Then we have MSM reporting on it, which is the bottom of the barrel. — Lionino

I'm glad to hear that. But you did say "literal idiots on Twitter quoting psychometric papers".

Do you buy the existence of humanity as a miracle of improbability? — ucarr

That is the fine-tuning problem and most secular philosophers don't think it is a miracle (I am taking "miracle" here to mean intelligent design or sheer chance (~40%)). — Lionino

Let me clarify; in this context, by "miracle" I mean a highly improbable or unlikely development.

Do you deny the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle was worked out as a math inequality? — ucarr

No. The HUP still is not about the "limits of quantised physical interactions". It has a clear physical meaning. — Lionino

Is Heisenberg's uncertainty principle about existence or observation?

This is at the heart of the difference between Quantum Mechanics and "Big Stuff Physics"(Newtonian). The fundamental thing really is the mathematical object (the amplitude distribution) not the particle itself.

...position and position over time are related in quantum mechanics. So it turns out that when your position distribution is concentrated in a single area, when you [Fourier] transform it to get the momentum, that momentum distribution is more spread out (less determinable). Similarly, if the momentum distribution is concentrated, then the position distribution is more spread out (less determinable). The reason for this, mathematically, is that the momentum distribution and the position distribution of particles in Quantum Configuration Space are the Fourier Transforms of one-another.

Tyler Kresch

With your emphatic statement above, you're claiming to know with confidence what Bohr, Shrödinger and Feynman didn't claim to know with confidence: the inflection point merging physics as material thing with physics as math model.