RE: - (Ask a particle physisicist)
June 9, 2015 at 8:54 pm
(This post was last modified: June 9, 2015 at 9:14 pm by Pyrrho.)
I would not characterize this as a modesty battle. Uncle K knows more about science than I do. He will not deny that, even though he is polite. If you want, you may ask him that directly and see what he says.
If he is extremely cautious, he will merely say that I have not demonstrated any great scientific knowledge, not that he is certain that I lack it. But there is no doubt that I have not demonstrated in this thread the scientific knowledge he has demonstrated in this thread. He will agree to that.
My position has been that metaphysics is bullshit. And further, that it does not matter what philosophers say about the philosophy of science. That is, it does not matter as long as scientists are smart enough to ignore it, which they generally are.
None of this is to be understood as being disparaging of the subject of philosophy as a whole. Indeed, one of the early posts I made regarding all of this was to bring in one of the most respected philosophers in the history of philosophy (David Hume), and I have been endorsing his position, that metaphysics is (to use his words) "sophistry and illusion."
I did not say that my posts had no value. I stated that they had no scientific value. None of the posts of mine that have value in this thread are of any scientific value. [Some of my posts were mere jokes, as I hope people can see (though I think someone mistook one for something serious a while back), and so I cannot say that they all have value of any kind.] My posts that have value were about metaphysics and about the philosophy of science, and about poetry (the last of which Uncle K recognized in his list of links).
But, for scientific value, Uncle K has given us numerous posts. And he has wisely recognized the limitations both of his subject and his personal knowledge (which I state this way to please him, as well as being strictly true). He seems more open than I am to the idea that the philosophy of science may have some value, but I suspect that that is because he has spent more time doing useful things than reading worthless crap in the philosophy of science, though he has read some that gives him some appreciation for my position.
He may now either endorse this or argue with it or ignore it, as it pleases him.
If he is extremely cautious, he will merely say that I have not demonstrated any great scientific knowledge, not that he is certain that I lack it. But there is no doubt that I have not demonstrated in this thread the scientific knowledge he has demonstrated in this thread. He will agree to that.
My position has been that metaphysics is bullshit. And further, that it does not matter what philosophers say about the philosophy of science. That is, it does not matter as long as scientists are smart enough to ignore it, which they generally are.
None of this is to be understood as being disparaging of the subject of philosophy as a whole. Indeed, one of the early posts I made regarding all of this was to bring in one of the most respected philosophers in the history of philosophy (David Hume), and I have been endorsing his position, that metaphysics is (to use his words) "sophistry and illusion."
I did not say that my posts had no value. I stated that they had no scientific value. None of the posts of mine that have value in this thread are of any scientific value. [Some of my posts were mere jokes, as I hope people can see (though I think someone mistook one for something serious a while back), and so I cannot say that they all have value of any kind.] My posts that have value were about metaphysics and about the philosophy of science, and about poetry (the last of which Uncle K recognized in his list of links).
But, for scientific value, Uncle K has given us numerous posts. And he has wisely recognized the limitations both of his subject and his personal knowledge (which I state this way to please him, as well as being strictly true). He seems more open than I am to the idea that the philosophy of science may have some value, but I suspect that that is because he has spent more time doing useful things than reading worthless crap in the philosophy of science, though he has read some that gives him some appreciation for my position.
He may now either endorse this or argue with it or ignore it, as it pleases him.
"A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence."
— David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Section X, Part I.
