Philosophy Statement #3
The Duhem-Quine Thesis ... the results of an experiment do not necessarily (that is, the necessity of logic) confirm or refute the hypothesis tested. Any background assumption can also be altered to fit a theory to the experimental result.
That is, no physical theory should ever be considered either confirmed nor reputed by any experimental result ... at least not in any absolute sense. (Commonly phrased as ... in terms of logical truth, there are no crossroads experiments. That is, experiments that necessarily force you to choose one physical theory over another.)
The interesting questions begin when we start analyzing why we choose to keep certain assumptions and throw out others given any experimental results.
"Data underdetermines reality." Mathematically/geometrically speaking ... there are uncountably many 'curves' that can be drawn through (or fitted to) any finite set of points. Scientifically speaking ... there are uncountably many internally consistent physical theories that can account for any finite set of experimental facts.
There is no "higher" objective stance (at least for humans) from which to look down and determine, absolutely, which physical theory or curve fitting is the correct one. There is no reason to believe that humans have access to any such vantage point.
But this is OK. "Luckily" (?), scientifically, the question before us has little to do with choosing one system over another. First we have to complete one system against the countless facts at hand, and have one completed theory of how the physical world works. Then we can work to create a 2nd or 3rd system and argue between them.
Until we have at least one system we have not even the first notion of how to argue between them. We can not even ask the right questions, more or less give the right answers.
Further Quine ... lets say we do have a complete system. Once this is the case we can change the accepted truth or falsity of any axiom we want and correct for this somewhere else in the physical theory ... and we can have a new complete physical theory to sit beside the first. (Even completed physical theories will still have unprovable axioms, at least for us humans.)
What remains of the "rational and principled" phrase i often use, when fully explicated, might be something more like Neurath's 'pduedorational idea' ... it helps us to keep our physical and metaphysical frameworks consistent, but the notion of 'correct' or 'incorrect' does not really apply, or only so relative to another framework.
It might be claimed that such completed theories already exist. Such as ... "All is one, there is no real division in the world, all distinctions are illusions." Can all appearence-facts be accounted for in a logically consistent manner in this way? Apparently yes. Its a pretty dull theory though, not much else to do. (How does one win an argument with a young solipsist philosopher? Go away and return in a couple years. The philosopher will have moved on to something more interesting by then.) So lets falsify an assumptions, the one about all distinctions being illusions, and try to account for 'everything' again.
That is essentially my view of the joy before us in the world. Take whatever assumptions seem best to you. Check them for logical consistency (not even that if you don't care for that assumption) and then extend the metaphysics as far as you can.
When you can go no further, or even if your just bored of that theory/tool/toy, put it down and pick up another set of metaphysical assumptions. Start over. Enjoy.
To paraphrase Nietzsche ... the idea thus conceived, extended and completed ... they may be beautiful arts, but, still, one must let them go. They are stone. Do not carry around every graven image you have ever made. Drop them on the ground where you complete them and then climb higher.
That is, no physical theory should ever be considered either confirmed nor reputed by any experimental result ... at least not in any absolute sense. (Commonly phrased as ... in terms of logical truth, there are no crossroads experiments. That is, experiments that necessarily force you to choose one physical theory over another.)
The interesting questions begin when we start analyzing why we choose to keep certain assumptions and throw out others given any experimental results.
"Data underdetermines reality." Mathematically/geometrically speaking ... there are uncountably many 'curves' that can be drawn through (or fitted to) any finite set of points. Scientifically speaking ... there are uncountably many internally consistent physical theories that can account for any finite set of experimental facts.
There is no "higher" objective stance (at least for humans) from which to look down and determine, absolutely, which physical theory or curve fitting is the correct one. There is no reason to believe that humans have access to any such vantage point.
But this is OK. "Luckily" (?), scientifically, the question before us has little to do with choosing one system over another. First we have to complete one system against the countless facts at hand, and have one completed theory of how the physical world works. Then we can work to create a 2nd or 3rd system and argue between them.
Until we have at least one system we have not even the first notion of how to argue between them. We can not even ask the right questions, more or less give the right answers.
Further Quine ... lets say we do have a complete system. Once this is the case we can change the accepted truth or falsity of any axiom we want and correct for this somewhere else in the physical theory ... and we can have a new complete physical theory to sit beside the first. (Even completed physical theories will still have unprovable axioms, at least for us humans.)
What remains of the "rational and principled" phrase i often use, when fully explicated, might be something more like Neurath's 'pduedorational idea' ... it helps us to keep our physical and metaphysical frameworks consistent, but the notion of 'correct' or 'incorrect' does not really apply, or only so relative to another framework.
It might be claimed that such completed theories already exist. Such as ... "All is one, there is no real division in the world, all distinctions are illusions." Can all appearence-facts be accounted for in a logically consistent manner in this way? Apparently yes. Its a pretty dull theory though, not much else to do. (How does one win an argument with a young solipsist philosopher? Go away and return in a couple years. The philosopher will have moved on to something more interesting by then.) So lets falsify an assumptions, the one about all distinctions being illusions, and try to account for 'everything' again.
That is essentially my view of the joy before us in the world. Take whatever assumptions seem best to you. Check them for logical consistency (not even that if you don't care for that assumption) and then extend the metaphysics as far as you can.
When you can go no further, or even if your just bored of that theory/tool/toy, put it down and pick up another set of metaphysical assumptions. Start over. Enjoy.
To paraphrase Nietzsche ... the idea thus conceived, extended and completed ... they may be beautiful arts, but, still, one must let them go. They are stone. Do not carry around every graven image you have ever made. Drop them on the ground where you complete them and then climb higher.
posted by Thomas F. Schminke at 7:44 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home