First collisions at the LHC with unprecedented Energy! (Ask a particle physisicist)

[Pyrrho]

Uh-Oh. With great power comes great responsibility

Don't worry.  I am ready to stop believing you at any moment.  Just say some crazy bullshit, and we shall see.  (Or, rather, I will see, for as I have already stated, I am not going to argue with you online about any sciency thing.)

[Anomalocaris]

Uh-Oh. With great power comes great responsibility

That's right, The maintenance of the good names of Newton, Maxwell, Einstein, schrodinger, Heisenberg, fermi, Dirac, yang and mills, Glashow, Weinberg, Watson now all rest upon your hamster loving shoulders. 

[JuliaL]

Disclaimer:
I had no intention of starting a modesty battle between Pyrrho & AlexK.






It's pleasant to see physics and metaphysics peacefully coexist.

Challenge: Can you deny your mutual self deprecation without looking even more 'aw shucks, we're just folk?'

[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.

[JuliaL]

My position has been that metaphysics is bullshit.  

My apologies for mischaracterizing your position(s).
I confuse easily.
But aren't you stating a positional claim of the underlying ultimate character of metaphysics?  That it is bullshit?
Isn't that a metaphysical stand?
Ah, well....

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.

I expect there is a multi dimensional spectrum of attitudes, from indifference to complete acceptance to full denial which establish some equilibrium position for the population of practitioners.  Given the amount of work involved in creating and maintaining standing in any scientific discipline, I'd expect the general consensus of scientists regarding the philosophy of science to be, "Eh, what?"  Though when pressed and if the question is specifically put, they'd probably agree with you.

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.

Sure they do.  Science is the study of reality.  As your posts are part of the material world, they are included in that study and have scientific value.  At this moment, your posts, with billions of others, are being data-mined by graduate students around the world studying the uses to which the bandwith surplus of the internet can and should be put.  So to say they have 'no' scientific value is excessively modest.  May I suggest an alternative, 'of infinitessimal scientific value.'  

Some of my posts were mere jokes,

As are mine.  And I hope you find them amusing rather than insulting.

[Pyrrho]

My position has been that metaphysics is bullshit.  

My apologies for mischaracterizing your position(s).
I confuse easily.
But aren't you stating a positional claim of the underlying ultimate character of metaphysics?  That it is bullshit?
Isn't that a metaphysical stand?
Ah, well....

No, it is not a metaphysical position.  It is a comment about the subject of metaphysics.  One can comment about a subject, without that comment being part of the subject.  One can say of mathematics that it is the study of number.  That is not itself a mathematical statement, or a statement within mathematics.  It is a statement about mathematics.  Likewise, one can speak about other subjects, without one's statement necessarily being a part of that subject.  For example, I can say that both physics and biology are sciences.  That is not a statement within physics, nor within the subject of biology.  It is a statement about those two subjects.

To give a very easy example, I can also say that astrology is bullshit.  (It is a different kind of bullshit from metaphysics, but it is still bullshit.)  That is not an astrological statement, or a statement within astrology.  It is a statement about astrology.

In the case of metaphysics, I am saying that the stories told within that subject are bullshit stories.  "Bullshit" is not a technical term in this sort of case; I am saying that there is something wrong with metaphysical stories, though I have not said precisely what the problems are.  I have hinted at some problems with some stories, but the stories need not all have the same problem or problems.

Of course, I have not given an absolute proof, but I have said enough to suggest that there is something funny going on with some metaphysical stories.  So I have not been asking people to just take my word for it.  Frankly, I don't expect to convince very many people, if any.  People like their silly stories, and thus you will find people wasting a lot of time and effort on arguments about whether the holy ghost proceeds from the father and son, or just from the father, of the Trinity, that is three things that are supposed to be one thing.  Convincing people that they are believing bullshit is not easy, and I do not expect to convince anyone who started off completely opposed to the ideas presented.  At most, I expect it might nudge someone slightly in my direction, and if someone is not nearly in agreement before this thread, I doubt that anything I have said will get that someone to agree with me.

To put this another way, some stories are bullshit.  And I am saying that all of the stories that are metaphysical stories are bullshit.  And so are the stories of astrology.  I have not provided an absolute proof of either (and no evidence at all for the case of astrology in this thread).  But, again, I have shown that there is something funny going on with some metaphysical stories, and I think they are sufficiently representative to give one some ideas regarding other such stories.

For another nudge in my favor,  consider that when a story tells one something about the world that is testable, it is automatically excluded from the subject of metaphysics, and is likely a part of some science or other (which one, will depend on how it is tested).  It could be part of something not normally classified as science, as, for example, the definition of a particular word in a particular language.  An example of this is the question, "What does the word 'bachelor' mean?"  That is something that is a matter of what the English language is like, and is not a metaphysical question.  We can test answers to the question by consulting dictionaries and by consulting fluent speakers of English (though for the latter, one would want to consult with many such speakers, as it is not uncommon for someone to get some words wrong).

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.

I expect there is a multi dimensional spectrum of attitudes, from indifference to complete acceptance to full denial which establish some equilibrium position for the population of practitioners.  Given the amount of work involved in creating and maintaining standing in any scientific discipline, I'd expect the general consensus of scientists regarding the philosophy of science to be, "Eh, what?"  Though when pressed and if the question is specifically put, they'd probably agree with you.

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.

Sure they do.  Science is the study of reality.  As your posts are part of the material world, they are included in that study and have scientific value.  At this moment, your posts, with billions of others, are being data-mined by graduate students around the world studying the uses to which the bandwith surplus of the internet can and should be put.  So to say they have 'no' scientific value is excessively modest.  May I suggest an alternative, 'of infinitessimal scientific value.'  

Your definition of "science" is nonstandard.  See:

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/defini...ctCode=all

As far as bandwidth use goes, it makes no difference what I type, whether it is words or just random letters.  The subject of what I am writing is irrelevant to bandwidth.  It is the action of putting stuff online that affects bandwidth.  So bandwidth use is irrelevant to my statements qua statements.  That is only a matter of moving data (which could be random letters, numbers, whatever) from my computer to this site, and what this site does with it (e.g., sending it to you when you click on this page, sending it to others to read, etc.).

Some of my posts were mere jokes,

As are mine.  And I hope you find them amusing rather than insulting.

That is usually what one hopes.

[Longhorn]

Uncle K

Uhhh, yea....sorry about that Alex

[Alex K]

Jesus, I'm drowning in saccharine harmony here! Can't we fight a little over who made what contribution?

[Alex K]

Challenge: Can you deny your mutual self deprecation without looking even more 'aw shucks, we're just folk?'

Oh, I'm sure Pyrrho is much better at that than me. He's so talented

[Anomalocaris]

Jesus, I'm drowning in saccharine harmony here! Can't we fight a little over who made what contribution?

Perhaps there is a fundamental harmony field whose excitation by talks of LHC resulted in this sea of harmonions.    Presumably harmonions can harmoniously share the same quantum state, So we can call the harmonion particles you are drowning in Alex's bosons.   


Okay, even I can't make that one fly.