There is no such thing as 100% accuracy, even in principle, and it is a fundamental feature of the inductive way that scientific theories are devised that they will never be certain. This being the case, if we say that approximation means 'known-to-be-false' then we have to conclude that all scientific theories, past present and future, are and will always be known-to-be-false. I tend to take a utilitarian view of the usages of words. That is, I tend to think that the way I use those words should be useful. To me, that usage of the term known-to-be-false isn't useful.Scott wrote:What we must remember about scientific approximation, as a way to simplistically describe emergent phenomenon in a practical away, is that approximation also by definition means 'known-to-be-false'.
The Logical Implication of CTD
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: The Logical Implication of CTD
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: The Logical Implication of CTD
I think an underlying reason why we disagree on this is that I consider theories of physics to be models whose purpose is to describe and predict as wide as possible a range of potential observations as accurately as possible. Different models work for different purposes. The elements of the models (for example a universal time in Newtonian physics or 4D space-time in Einsteinian physics) are not real things. Models, and their constituent elements, are abstract concepts. Therefore I disagree that Newtonian mechanics asserts something that doesn't exist. I don't think that's a useful way of viewing it, for reasons touched on in the previous post.Scott wrote:Newtonian Mechanics is wrong. It asserts something that doesn't exist: Objective Time and Objective Timeness (as objectively and funmdentally distinguishable from Spaceness).
- RJG
- Posts: 2767
- Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm
Re: The Logical Implication of CTD
- Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
- The admin formerly known as Scott
- Posts: 5765
- Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
- Contact:
Re: The Logical Implication of CTD
Sorry about that! I just now fixed it.
Scott wrote:What we must remember about scientific approximation, as a way to simplistically describe emergent phenomenon in a practical away, is that approximation also by definition means 'known-to-be-false'.
I don't necessarily disagree with that. When I point out that the Newtonian's Mechanics have been scientifically proven wrong, it's fair to also point out that philosophically speaking it also happens to be arguably true that all scientific theories are likely (or arguably certainly) wrong, and that science--at least science alone--is arguably never able to provide absolute truth but only wrongness, ideally wrongness that's approximately right at least for most intents and purposes in some contexts at some scales for some subjective/relative purposes.
Of course, but there is a difference between accuracy and certainty.
We know Newtonian Mechanics are false in the same sense that we know Flat Earthy Theory is false, in that both theories have been falsified using the scientific method (i.e. tested and failed, empirically speaking). We (scientifically) know Newtonian Mechanics is false in the same way we know dinosaurs are extinct, which is not the same as the sense in which Socrates would say (philosophically) that we know nothing and never know whether dinosaurs are extinct.
I don't necessarily agree with the second sentence, due to the possible equivocation between scientific knowledge and the usage of the word 'known' in the Socratic sense in which of course we know nothing, at least beyond the existence of our consciousness.
In Science, theories can be effectively disproved. (And needless to say that is effectively how science works in total and sum: one tosses out a bunch of conceivable testable hypotheses and tries to disprove them and believes the ones that can't be disproved, as properly trimmed down by parsimony and Occam's razor of course).
In terms of contradicting repeatable empirical observation, the known-to-be-wrongness of Flat Earth Theory and Newtonian Mechanics is not merely a matter of the philosophy and metaphysics that cast doubt on all of science and empirical observation.
Flat Earth Theory is disproved when one takes a spaceship to space and sees the Earth is round, or otherwise measures the roundness of Earth at large scales here on Earth.
Newtonian Mechanics are disproved when one takes a spaceship to space comes back to Earth and sees their clocks don't match up anymore with those on Earth.
Newtonian Mechanics is disproved when one measures the rate of procession of Mercury.
Additionally, GPS satellites wouldn't work if they were designed under the false assumption that Newtonian Mechanics are actually correct, rather than a simplified approximation that works for many practical intents and purposes in certain contexts at certain scales despite having already been scientifically debunked.
Newtonian Mechanics and Flat Theory aren't just philosophically 'known-to-be-wrong' in the way one can philosophically argue that all scientific models are known-to-be-wrong (and all empirical observations are doubtable). Rather, they are also scientifically debunked. They are scientifically wrong. They are counterfactual to empirical observation and empirical data. They are scientifically disprovable through repeatable scientific experiment.
"The mind is a wonderful servant but a terrible master."
I believe spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) manifests as bravery, confidence, grace, honesty, love, and inner peace.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023