Here is a good article some people might appreciate


http://scientiasalon.wordpress.com/2014 ... mpiricism/

Interbane:

In my posts in which I questioned Carrier's thoughts on the evidence he claims exists or is applicable to "theories" of the multiverse , I was as specific as I thought I could be in articulating what I had doubts about.

This quote from Massimo's article ties in to what my thoughts are about evidence and empiricism.
Ive harped on this before.
Let me know your thoughts:

"So, what are the dictionary definitions of science, mathematics and logic? Here they are (from my built-in Apple Dictionary):

science, the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. (Interestingly, the same dictionary also provides this alternative meaning: “knowledge of any kind,” but labels it asarchaic.)

mathematics, the abstract study of number, quantity, and space.

logic, reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.

It ought to be clear even from these definitions — which are congruent with the vast majority of the specialized literature on the philosophy of science, of math, and of logic — that mathematics is distinct from but akin to logic, and that both of them are very distinct from (although very useful to) science. Hume was onto something, after all.

As I mentioned, the most common refrain from radical empiricists when faced with the above is that math and logic “ultimately” are rooted in empirical knowledge, a recurring example being that we believe that 1+1=2 because we can see that if we put side by side two objects of the same kind we get a total of two objects of the same kind. Another example is that standard practices in logic, say modus ponens [9] are adopted because they “work” in the real world.

Both responses miss the mark because they subtly but surely change the conversation. The first example tells us at most that human beings began to think about abstract objects prompted by elementary empirical observations. But the question at hand is not how mathematical reasoning originated in the Pleistocene, it is what kind of mental activity is modern mathematics. And much of it has nothing whatsoever to do with empirical groundings of any sort. Yes, math is deployed as a tool in science and in all sorts of other applications, but there are huge swaths of mathematical territory that neither describe anything in the world nor are pursued by mathematicians for any practical reason at all." End article quote

Remember I was questioning how Carrier seems to shift from hard to soft definitions?

This (above) is what I was trying to introduce.
Of course Massimo can and did say it a whole damn lot better than I ever could have.

Pigliucci makes excellent points in this long piece. The humanities have fallen out of favor at our colleges and universities, including Pigliucci's own field of philosophy. A liberal arts education is arguably the best way to well-roundedness and yet somehow we've turned what is supposed to be "higher education" into glorified job training. I'm not sure if Pigliucci makes the case of radical empiricism though. I see this trend as the end result of a capitalistic and consumerist and materialist society. Our colleges and universities in one sense are giving the customers what they want.

I really wish he continued to blog at Rationally Speaking. It depressed me when he announced he was shutting it down earlier this year. I agree with Massimo on many things, but most of all his moderate tone. I agree with the article above. I also agree with his assessment of Carrier's tone on the other blog I linked to.

Connect the dots for me. You said this was in reference to something we discussed. I'm not trying to be thick, I just don't remember.

Massimo P wrote i his article:

science, the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

This is the accepted definition of the word "science" as used today. Science has been defined different ways throughout history. As we all here know, it meant something much different in antiquity than it did in the middle ages, and so forth. It is very likely it will mean something different in the 22nd Century.

Our current definition must reject Carrier's claim that multiverse theories are scientifically factual. They ARE NOT. Carrier is abandoning our culture's working definition of what science is because neither observation or experimentation can be effectuated in any mutliverse hypothesis of today.

In fact, Carrier states that hypotheses "put forward a proposition about human experience" - an experience in the natural world that can be tested (my words).

Carrier again:

In scientific jargon, facts are what have been carefully observed to be the case. Theories are explanations of those facts.., But to scientists, fact is observation, theory is explanation.

Carrier claims that the leading multiverse hypotheses are "theories"
There has been no observation of multiverse phenomena, therefore, no facts have ever been established.
There can be no theories explaining mutiverse facts.

Anything is in some respect a fact if it can actually be experienced as described. In a simple sense, a hypothesis is false when the conditions are met but the predicted experience is not experienced as described, and true when the conditions are met and the predicted experience is experienced as described.

- Carrier (my emphases)

Any multiverse hypothesis Carrier would give credence to or promote as a naturalistic explanation for the universe is false as well according to Carrier. Mathematical analysis may or may not predict the necessary conditions for a multiverse, but that is irrelevant according to Carrier because the predicted experience has not been experienced (or ever will be, I'm betting) as mathematically described.

Carrier is being soft with something he is claiming to be scientifically established. He also totally abandons our contemporary definition of "science." He wants to be metaphysical about science AND nature.

What is it in Carrier's worldview that establishes what the natural world actually is?
I'm guessing it is the scientific method that establishes what the natural world is and will be in the future as theories are turned over or modified in the future by the scientific method.

The scientific method develops and formulates hypotheses that are testable and make predictions against observation and controlled experimentation. This is known as the "hypothetico-deductive method" (I had to remind myself by looking at my personal notes )

Anyway here's what wiki says:

The hypothetico-deductive model or method is a proposed description of scientific method. According to it, scientific inquiry proceeds by formulating a hypothesis in a form that could conceivably be falsified by a test on observable data. A test that could and does run contrary to predictions of the hypothesis is taken as a falsification of the hypothesis. A test that could but does not run contrary to the hypothesis corroborates the theory. It is then proposed to compare the explanatory value of competing hypotheses by testing how stringently they are corroborated by their predictions.

Carrier states that the method of science as a source of knowledge is second only to mathematical and logical certainty.
But does math and logic count as part of the scientific method?
No - because its results are developed purely by reasoning. New axioms are also developed within math itself (abstractly) and not outside (the world writ large)

Naturalism, in practice, holds the scientific method highest of all.
Carrier it seems needs to combine mathematics and the scientific method together rather than separate the two if he doesn't want to exclude mathematical proofs from the scientific method itself.

What else then needs to be counted as science and who decides?
What's next? History? Logic? Philosophy?

If naturalism continues to include more, then the scientific method ceases to be it's primary tool for exploring the natural world.

It seems that Carrier (and other naturalists) are exclusivists within the hypthetico/deductive model when they are critical of other worldviews developed outside it, and then quickly become welcoming of methods of knowledge outside it when pressed (ie "the mutiverse exists because math has established it as fact"; "God does not exist because there is no evidence for Him and the scientific method is applicable to a metaphysical being like God")

It's an attempt to condense metaphysics with naturalism. And the argumentative tactic is advance, retreat, advance, retreat, advance, retreat, advance, retreat, advance, retreat, ad infinitum.

Lastly, the Naturalists explanations are unquestionably subject to "theory- ladenness"

In the philosophy of science, observations are said to be "theory‐laden" when they are affected by the theoretical presuppositions held by the investigator.

- Wiki

Observational judgments are affected by an observer's theoretical beliefs.
Carrier's theory is that Nature has no boundaries and that the scientific method will eventually explain everything as natural.
What is the evidence for a claim like that?

Our current definition must reject Carrier's claim that multiverse theories are scientifically factual. They ARE NOT. Carrier is abandoning our culture's working definition of what science is because neither observation or experimentation can be effectuated in any mutliverse hypothesis of today.

I'm completely on board with you. If he actually said that. From what I remember, the method he used was the last one on the list. Not the second.

Carrier claims that the leading multiverse hypotheses are "theories"
There has been no observation of multiverse phenomena, therefore, no facts have ever been established.
There can be no theories explaining mutiverse facts.

Again, I'm completely on board with you. If he's using the scientific connotation of the word theory. He references god as the "god theory". Based on context, he's using the layman's connotation. The various multiverse theories are scientific hypotheses at best, if they are scientific at all.

I'm guessing it is the scientific method that establishes what the natural world is and will be in the future as theories are turned over or modified in the future by the scientific method.

The scientific method is number two on the list. Alone it is insufficient.

Naturalism, in practice, holds the scientific method highest of all.

Methodological naturalism is essentially science.

Carrier's theory is that Nature has no boundaries and that the scientific method will eventually explain everything as natural.
What is the evidence for a claim like that?

He gives the supportive reasoning in section three. I'd quote it for you, but an audio book is tough to browse. However, I doubt he said the scientific method in particular will explain everything. I'm pretty sure he appeals to each of the methods at some point.

Yeah, you need some direct quotes, Ant, if you're going to accuse Carrier of making such claims. He never does. Carrier is actually very up front about the speculative nature of these theories. When he likes one over another, it's only because he personally likes it. He says these theories paint a picture of the universe that's consistent with what's observed, not that there's factual evidence to support them. In fact, what he actually says a couple of times that there's no evidence against these theories.

In this passage, for example, Carrier actually says "there is, so far, no evidence against it." That's pretty loose.

Carrier wrote:. . . if a Big Bang looks exactly like a really big mass crushed to an extreme point, and black holes are really big masses crushed to an extreme point, then it may well be that inside every black hole is a new Big Bang. Every time a star collapses, a new universe explodes, in another direction, outside our universe. Like Chaotic Inflation, this already follows from known physics. In fact, Chaotic Inflation incorporates exactly the same prediction: that black holes (either all of them or certain kinds) spawn new inflation events—new Big Bangs. This is a logical inference from what we already know, and there is no known law of nature that would prevent it. It is at this point, however, that Smolin introduces a new physical law, in order to explain why our universe is so well-made for black holes. Chaotic Inflation predicts this, too, but only as an accident. Indeed, there could be regions of the universe that are even better suited to life than to black holes. And if there are, that puts us essentially in the cosmic ghetto, so to speak. That would explain a lot—and there is, so far, no evidence against it. But Smolin’s theory actually predicts that a universe exactly like ours is inherently probable, by drawing again on known scientific phenomena. And that gives it some special appeal.

And here:

Carrier wrote:So, like Chaotic Inflation, the Smolin Selection theory is a logical inference from known science, there is no evidence against it, and it predicts exactly the kind of universe we have, including its most unusual properties—not only its amazing suitability for black holes, but all the specific details that make for that suitability, such as many of the physical constants (which, if they varied even slightly, would produce fewer black holes, or none at all). And both theories are more than credible. Both explain why everything seems made of nothing but dimensions and particles. Both theories explain why there are quarks and neutrinos, and why they have the properties they do. Both theories explain why the universe is so big and so old, and why most of it is so inhospitable to life. Both theories also explain why our universe is so complex, and why it is organized in such a way as to make life possible in the first place. And both theories predict not only that the universe would be brought about by a Big Bang (instead of, say, instantaneous creation or intelligent assembly), but they predict why that particular Big Bang, with its very peculiar result. So they both do a much better job of explaining things than “God did it” ever has...

[/quote]