• In total there are 19 users online :: 1 registered, 0 hidden and 18 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 789 on Tue Mar 19, 2024 5:08 am

"Theoretical physics is not an autonomous science; it is subordinate to metaphysics..."

Engage in discussions encompassing themes like cosmology, human evolution, genetic engineering, earth science, climate change, artificial intelligence, psychology, and beyond in this forum.
Forum rules
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.

All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: "Theoretical physics is not an autonomous science; it is subordinate to metaphysics..."

Unread post

youkrst wrote:the thread title

Theoretical physics is not an autonomous science; it is subordinate to metaphysics...

contains

Theoretical physics is subordinate to metaphysics...

from

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaphysics/
It is not easy to say what metaphysics is. Ancient and Medieval philosophers might have said that metaphysics was, like chemistry or astrology, to be defined by its subject matter: metaphysics was the “science” that studied “being as such” or “the first causes of things” or “things that do not change.” It is no longer possible to define metaphysics that way, and for two reasons.
subordinate
subordinate
adjective
adjective: subordinate
səˈbɔːdɪnət/

1.
lower in rank or position.
"his subordinate officers"
synonyms: lower-ranking, junior, lower, lesser, inferior, lowly, minor, supporting; More
second-fiddle
"she kept her distance from subordinate staff"
antonyms: superior, senior
of less or secondary importance.
"in adventure stories, character must be subordinate to action"
synonyms: secondary, lesser, minor, subsidiary, subservient, ancillary, auxiliary, attendant, peripheral, marginal, of little account/importance; More
second-class, second-rate, second-fiddle;
supplementary, accessory, additional, extra
"a subordinate rule"
antonyms: central, major, chief

noun
noun: subordinate; plural noun: subordinates
səˈbɔːdɪnət/

1.
a person under the authority or control of another within an organization.
"he was mild-mannered, especially with his subordinates"
synonyms: junior, assistant, second, second in command, number two, right-hand man/woman, deputy, aide, adjutant, subaltern, apprentice, underling, flunkey, minion, lackey, mate, inferior; More
informalsidekick, henchman, second fiddle, man/girl Friday
"the manager and his or her subordinate jointly review performance"
antonyms: superior, senior

verb
verb: subordinate; 3rd person present: subordinates; past tense: subordinated; past participle: subordinated; gerund or present participle: subordinating
səˈbɔːdɪneɪt/

1.
treat or regard as of lesser importance than something else.
"practical considerations were subordinated to political expediency"
make subservient to or dependent on something else.
"to define life would be to subordinate it to reason"

Origin

now theoretical physics
Theoretical physics is a branch of physics which employs mathematical models and abstractions of physical objects and systems to rationalize, explain and predict natural phenomena.
you see how this thread title is frustrating.

it reads
a branch of physics which employs mathematical models and abstractions of physical objects and systems to rationalize, explain and predict natural phenomena is lower in rank or position than metaphysics, It is not easy to say what metaphysics is.
subordinate in which mind? subordinate is a very onerous concept, a very "christian" word, military, authoritarian, it makes me think of monarchs, priesthoods and submission to the tyranny of monied fools.

but i must say i am looking forward to the initial release of the group stahwre.
I've thanked this post for its sheer entertainment value.
It was used as a billy club to hit "Christianity" on its head.

And let's not forget how the word "subordinate" sounds so "christian."

Here is the etymology of subordinate:



mid-15c., "having an inferior rank," from Medieval Latin subordinatus "placed in a lower order, made subject," past participle of subordinare "place in a lower order," from Latin sub "under" (see sub-) + ordinare "arrange, set in order" (see ordain). Related: Subordinance; subordinant; subordinately. For "of or pertaining to the classificatory rank of a suborder," subordinal (1870) is used.
subordinate (v.) Look up subordinate at Dictionary.com
"to bring into a subordinate position to something else, to make of less value, to make auxiliary or dependent," 1590s, from Medieval Latin subordinatus (see subordinate (adj.)). Related: Subordinated; subordinating.
subordinate (n.) Look up subordinate at Dictionary.com
"one inferior in power, rank, office, etc.," 1630s, from subordinate (adj.).

Yes indeed! No one is or has been subordinate to anyone else in secular regimes!
The very word belongs to religion and medieval religious empires!
Except of course when it's used by a non believer!!


You can't make this kind of stuff up!
VMLM
Experienced
Posts: 110
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 7:12 am
13
Has thanked: 41 times
Been thanked: 52 times

Re: "Theoretical physics is not an autonomous science; it is subordinate to metaphysics..."

Unread post

After reading a little bit into the philosophy of science, I have to thank you, stahrwe, for that quote from Pierre Duhem. I wish I had more solid bibliography on him right now. Alas I'm at home, not near a library where I can look into him.

When I read this phrase:
Therefore, if the aim of physical theories is to explain experimental laws, theoretical physics is not an autonomous science; it is subordinate to metaphysics...
My gut reaction, much like ant's and LanDroid's, was to interpret this as an erred definition of what physics is. Why? Because it has been inculcated into me that physical theories are not laws, since they must be, by definition, temporary and falsifiable.
However, in the context of what is being discussed, I understood the phrase to be referring not to physical theories, but to the nature of theoretical physics itself. I came to rationalize the phrase to mean that theoretical physics was a study of natural laws (the "real" laws that exist independently of our understanding and which dictate the physical world), which it attempts to explain through mathematical models. To me this made sense.
To be more clear: What Duhem discusses isn't the validity of any single theoretical model, such as relativity or quantum mechanics, but the validity of the scientific method through which these models were conceived and validated in the first place.
A reading of Duhem's Wikipedia page will confirm that this interpretation is probably correct. I say probably because Wikipedia isn't entirely trustworthy as a source, and since this is the only thing I've read, my understanding is probably flawed.

In any case, this and Interbane's follow up made me curious about the Philosophy of Science. As well as existing criticism for the scientific method. Criticism 1, Critcism 2.

I already "knew" this. It had been hinted throughout my schooling that there were problems with the scientific method, that there were philosophical underpinnings for the practice of science and that, like any other intellectual pursuit, the practice of science isn't free of subjectivity. I have to admit I'd never actually read the commentary on these problems. The question persisted in the back of my mind but never really bothered me, since it doesn't seem very practical to worry about it.

To me it makes sense to subordinate science, and consequently theoretical physics, to philosophy. It makes sense because it's important to understand the subjective philosophical vantage point from which you are doing science. Failure to understand this vantage point doesn't mean it doesn't exist, it just means you are (more) ignorant of the consequences and presuppositions of your argument, and of the model of inquiry through which you are formulating your argument. (There's an underlying discussion here regarding the practicality of recursively contemplating the study of the study of the natural world, as opposed simply to doing science without worrying so much about the metaphysical.)

I don't think this critique of science invalidates scientific inquiry. Since an important aspect of scientific theory is its insistence on being falsifiable, the philosophy of science already admits that any explanation given through scientific inquiry is fundamentally divorced from the reality which it explains.
It does, however, question the value of the definition and practice of the scientific method as it exists, and whether or not it must be improved, and how.

These are deeply important questions... that none of us here could adequately answer without reading the extensive associated knowledge, body of discussion and contemporary arguments. It's still very interesting... and worth keeping an eye on and discussing.
Last edited by VMLM on Mon Jan 13, 2014 1:39 pm, edited 9 times in total.
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: "Theoretical physics is not an autonomous science; it is subordinate to metaphysics..."

Unread post

VMLM:
Great thoughts there.

I agree with the statement (paraphrasing) subjectivity can not be divorced from the methods of science.
Eyes do not see. PEOPLE see.



In Kuhnian paradigm science the practicing community essentially has released itself from consistent falsification and has ossified and incubated itself from rigorous self examination and critique.
Only when science has begun to recognize its failure to explain anomalies that resist puzzle solving attempts by means of the current conceptual dogmas (Kuhn would call such dogmas nearly a necessary evil) does the practice of falsification again become a vital aspect of science.

A counter to the aforementioned claim might be stated in the following manner"
"But that's what peer review prevents. Hypothesis subjected to peer review is what keeps science "honest."

That is not entirely true.
Science is taught by scientists that adhere to the current paradigm and by the textbooks authored to teach what the paradigm requires to keep it "moving forward".
Here we have the logical fallacy "Circular Reasoning" in play:
Circular reasoning and the problem of induction

Joel Feinberg and Russ Shafer-Landau note that "using the scientific method to judge the scientific method is circular reasoning". Scientists attempt to discover the laws of nature and to predict what will happen in the future, based on those laws. However, per David Hume's problem of induction, science cannot be proven inductively by empirical evidence, and thus science cannot be proven scientifically. An appeal to a principle of the uniformity of nature would be required to deductively necessitate the continued accuracy of predictions based on laws that have only succeeded in generalizing past observations. But as Bertrand Russell observed, "The method of 'postulating' what we want has many advantages; they are the same as the advantages of theft over honest toil".[7]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

The anomaly "dark matter" and "dark energy" may be the opening stages of a recognized need to once again seriously question our understanding of laws we have proclaimed to be Laws (cap "L") of Nature.

That is why I am a scientific skeptic in the true sense. I don't doubt the sun will come up in the morning, my hand will be burned if I stick it in hot water, I'll break my neck if I jump off a building, or my iPhone is super! What I am skeptical of is these outlandish claims that science is our oracle of great Truths.

Science as an explanatory tool and technological maker is to be praised.
Science as a consultant for purpose and meaning in a vast cosmos that does not conform or bend to our explanatory demands for absolute Laws and Truths is ultimately impotent.


I hope I was clear enough to understand.

Thanks
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: "Theoretical physics is not an autonomous science; it is subordinate to metaphysics..."

Unread post

stahrwe wrote:While this post included an update on the group it is not related to the focus of the group per se.

When will the group post its first discussion point.
It seems like this has been going on forever.
User avatar
Interbane

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 7203
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
19
Location: Da U.P.
Has thanked: 1105 times
Been thanked: 2166 times
United States of America

Re: "Theoretical physics is not an autonomous science; it is subordinate to metaphysics..."

Unread post

That is why I am a scientific skeptic in the true sense. I don't doubt the sun will come up in the morning, my hand will be burned if I stick it in hot water, I'll break my neck if I jump off a building, or my iPhone is super! What I am skeptical of is these outlandish claims that science is our oracle of great Truths.
Perhaps your expectations were too high to begin with? I think most of us grow up under the assumption that figuring out what is true is an easy task. As it turns out, figuring out what is true is a devilishly difficult task. Which is why we need to be skeptical of every 'source' of the truth. With that said, the most abundant(if provisional) truths have been discovered by science. I'd say there has been tremendous progress in philosophy, but the progress is small when compared to science. What other enterprise has given us a comparable amount of knowledge?

If there is anything that should be labeled an oracle, science comes the closest. Such a claim isn't outlandish, even if it's exaggerated.
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: "Theoretical physics is not an autonomous science; it is subordinate to metaphysics..."

Unread post

Perhaps your expectations were too high to begin with?
Quite frankly, I have no high expectations toward anything or anyone.
That's just the way it is with me.
User avatar
Interbane

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 7203
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
19
Location: Da U.P.
Has thanked: 1105 times
Been thanked: 2166 times
United States of America

Re: "Theoretical physics is not an autonomous science; it is subordinate to metaphysics..."

Unread post

In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams
youkrst

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
One with Books
Posts: 2752
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 4:30 am
13
Has thanked: 2280 times
Been thanked: 727 times

Re: "Theoretical physics is not an autonomous science; it is subordinate to metaphysics..."

Unread post

ant wrote:Atheist war mongrels
:lol:
ant wrote:Notice how the troll thanked you for your post,
:D
ant wrote:When Stawrhe uses the word, out comes the bias in the vomitous implicit accusation that Stawrhe is using the word in a "very christian" manner.
nothing to do with stahrwe, the quote was written by Pierre Maurice Marie Duhem apparently.
ant wrote:Lesson learned here:
Let's attack the person whenever we get the chance.
not at all, no attack on stahrwe at all, i just thought that the statement "Theoretical physics .... is subordinate to metaphysics..." was a little weak.
Yes indeed! No one is or has been subordinate to anyone else in secular regimes!
The very word belongs to religion and medieval religious empires!
Except of course when it's used by a non believer!!
:D

ant, if you want to subordinate your theoretical physics to metaphysics you are of course entirely free to do so. Deepak Chopra will be right there with you.

PS: when i said subordinate is a very christian word, examples are not hard to find
"Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done."
But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?'"
i suppose i shall be had up for insubordination :D

it appears i am simply agreeing with Pierre Maurice Marie Duhem when he says
Now, to make physical theories depend on metaphysics is surely not the way to let them enjoy the privilege of universal consent."
User avatar
LanDroid

2A - MOD & BRONZE
Comandante Literario Supreme
Posts: 2800
Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2002 9:51 am
21
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Has thanked: 195 times
Been thanked: 1166 times
United States of America

Re: "Theoretical physics is not an autonomous science; it is subordinate to metaphysics..."

Unread post

ant wrote:
stahrwe wrote:While this post included an update on the group it is not related to the focus of the group per se.
When will the group post its first discussion point.
It seems like this has been going on forever.
Several weeks ago stahrwe estimated the group would start publishing info this Summer. You can't rush Science.
Last edited by LanDroid on Tue Jan 14, 2014 12:34 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
LanDroid

2A - MOD & BRONZE
Comandante Literario Supreme
Posts: 2800
Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2002 9:51 am
21
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Has thanked: 195 times
Been thanked: 1166 times
United States of America

Re: "Theoretical physics is not an autonomous science; it is subordinate to metaphysics..."

Unread post

VMLM said My gut reaction, much like ant's and LanDroid's, was to interpret this as an erred definition of what physics is. Why? Because it has been inculcated into me that physical theories are not laws, since they must be, by definition, temporary and falsifiable. However, in the context of what is being discussed, I understood the phrase to be referring not to physical theories, but to the nature of theoretical physics itself. I came to rationalize the phrase to mean that theoretical physics was a study of natural laws (the "real" laws that exist independently of our understanding and which dictate the physical world), which it attempts to explain through mathematical models.
But Duehm refers to "laws experimentally established" and "a group of experimental laws", not to the independent laws of nature you describe.
VMLM said To me it makes sense to subordinate science, and consequently theoretical physics, to philosophy.
You make very good points, but the subject of this thread is subordinating science to metaphysics. :boxed:
Post Reply

Return to “Science & Technology”