When you look back and recall all we have seen happening in the development of mind through the ages, it is a spectacular view. Almost 1500 years nothing happened. Then we get the reformation, a shift in the dominance of the church, England even created its own church..and then it starts...
Decartes rationalism, Hume's empiricism, Bacon's new approach to science, Newton and the development of physical science. A scientific revolution. And we dont need to wait another 1500 years for the next revolution.
The Industrial revolution was just 100 years later. And together with this there was a tremendous scientific development. The whole scientific attitude, prepared by the ongoing debates about empiricism against rationalism, had focused on empirical research, observation and experiment.
And Ersnt Mach was on of the first who shaped the scientific future by his philosophy of science. For him there was just one true source of our knowledge and certainty: sensations or experiences.
The origin of science lie in our experience in the manual arts and in our need to communicate these experiences. The need for communication involves the necessity of seeing connections and relations between facts, and leads us to realize that nothing in the natural world can be understood in isolation from its context.
That we have different sciences is for Mach just a practical matter. In fact there should be one Unified science, for all science has just one source: sensations.
The aim of science is to reach concise, economical descriptions of phenomena. The only way of finding out about phenomena is through sense experience and the only sound basis for communication about the external world is in the observation of it.
And according to Mach, the only hypotheses that are admissible are those that can be tested in sense experience. And until they have been tested , they must not be regarded as accepted scientific conclusions.
Most interesting and modern is Mach's idea about scientific theories. We are inclined to think of theories as explanatory, and so being the final result of scientific investigation.
For Mach, however, a theory is entirely provisional, since it uses analogies as temporaly substitutes for direct descriptions of phenomena in terms of sensations. When we meet an unfamiliar phenomenon which we dont understand, we first attempt to understand it in terms of phenomena with which we already are already familiar, that is by use of analogy.
You should see this in the light of the historical situation in Mach's time. Real scientific research had just started...chemistry, electricity, light, and so on....all was rather new in a scientific way.
So the question was 'What is light ?' And because scientists didnt understand they used the analogy of water and waves and tried to explane the behavior of light in terms of the behavior of waves.
The fact that the theory was succesful in certain contexts does not mean that it had been discovered that light really is a wave motion. This conclusion we can neither assert nor deny, because we can never directly verify the assertion or denial, that is, we can not give to either assertion or denial in terms of actual sensations.
The theory functioned as a useful tool for predicting. We learned from it how to describe in terms of sensations further phenomena involving light.
And here we see how Ernst Mach shows the direction of further developments in the philisophy of science. A strict focus on sensations, on empirical data. Scientific theories not as the ultimate truth and definite explanation of things, but as tools to predict.
A new attitude towards knowledge and science was formulated, which would be developed further in the vienna Circle group. Soon we'll meet the great philosophers of that group, of which Mach definitely at least was one of the ancestors.
Intro
[13:09] Gudrun Odriscoll: stanley herman has some power problems in RL
[13:09] Gemma Cleanslate: oh Herman!!!
[13:09] Gemma Cleanslate: lol
[13:09] AristotleVon Doobie: We can postpone if needed
[13:09] itsme Frederix: try a no break
[13:09] Gemma Cleanslate: wait til the weekend
[13:09] Gemma Cleanslate: yes
[13:10] Osrum Sands: definately Levension's Theory
[13:10] Herman Bergson: But I succeeded in writing it in less than 45 minutes this time
[13:10] Gemma Cleanslate: you can use a day off
[13:10] AristotleVon Doobie: cool
[13:10] Herman Bergson: I hope it will make some sense to you...:-)
[13:10] Gemma Cleanslate: why should it be different than the others???
[13:11] AristotleVon Doobie: LOL
[13:11] Gemma Cleanslate: lololol
[13:11] Stanley Aviatik: Hi GudrunHi gemma
[13:11] Gemma Cleanslate: oh dear
[13:11] Gemma Cleanslate: excuse me
[13:11] Gemma Cleanslate: could not help it
[13:11] Gudrun Odriscoll: hi stan
[13:11] itsme Frederix: I suggest we go Mach 5
[13:11] Herman Bergson: Well OK Gemma...then this lecture is specially dedicated to you...(^_^)
[13:11] Gemma Cleanslate: LOLOLOL
[13:12] AristotleVon Doobie: Arabella will not be here today she says
[13:12] Herman Bergson: Forgive me my typoes..I had no time to check on that...
[13:12] Herman Bergson: ok..then let's get started
The Discussion
[13:21] Herman Bergson: So much on Mach....:-)
[13:21] Herman Bergson: For those who know Feyerabend....Mach was the first with that kind of ideas...
[13:22] Herman Bergson: Most important is his view onthe function of scientific theory....just a tool to use for prediction.
[13:22] itsme Frederix: Its a rather technical view on science - how to use it to control the unpredictable environment. Isn't it
[13:23] Gemma Cleanslate: Well actually it all made perfect sense!!!!It is refreshing to have this clas at this time after some of the difficult ones we have suffered thru
[13:23] Stanley Aviatik: Indeed
[13:23] Herman Bergson: Thank you Gemma...:-)
[13:23] Osrum Sands: "suffered"
[13:23] Gemma Cleanslate: lol
[13:23] Gemma Cleanslate: yes
[13:23] Ze Novikov: lol
[13:23] Gudrun Odriscoll: gladly suffered
[13:23] Stanley Aviatik: I think she means me
[13:24] Gemma Cleanslate: no
[13:24] Mickorod Renard: no gain without pain
[13:24] Herman Bergson: Mach is very clear....and close to the views of Berkley and idealism.
[13:24] Gemma Cleanslate: stanley do not know you that well
[13:24] itsme Frederix: What about math, wich is also non-empiracal I think
[13:25] Gudrun Odriscoll: Mach was a physicist, wasnt' he. Mach numbers ...
[13:25] Stanley Aviatik: That was part of it
[13:25] Herman Bergson: Well Itsme, in the empirical tradition there were philosophers which said that mathematics was derived from observation.
[13:26] itsme Frederix: Oke, so Plato has gone?
[13:26] Herman Bergson: John Stuart Mill held that view
[13:26] Gemma Cleanslate: I recall that
[13:26] Herman Bergson: yes...definitely for Mach..he was against all meaphysics.
[13:26] Herman Bergson: All should be proven by sensations
[13:26] Samuel Okelly: "..The only way of finding out about phenomena is through sense experience.." how did he explain the subjective aspect of expectation in observation herman? (if at all he did)
[13:27] itsme Frederix: Seems to be a Kantian question Sam
[13:27] Herman Bergson: Most important to Mach was communication and communicatiing about sensattions
[13:28] Gudrun Odriscoll: Verbally or in mathematical terms?
[13:28] Samuel Okelly: so he trusted the senses implicitly?
[13:28] Herman Bergson: And he used the argument that I experience that certain sensations have certain effects on me,
[13:28] Herman Bergson: and by analogy I could infer that the same sensations will have the same effects on others
[13:29] Herman Bergson: for instance the sensation of water being wet..
[13:30] itsme Frederix: Well it seemed a very productive argument - at least in physics but maybe also in Freudian terms
[13:30] Herman Bergson: yes..the only source of knowledge were the senses
[13:30] Stanley Aviatik: Surely this is the whole point - everything is a sensation
[13:30] AristotleVon Doobie: and these analogies would be caterproized as 'normal'
[13:31] Herman Bergson: Yes stanley..that was Mach's opinion
[13:31] itsme Frederix: So Mach is talking about how not why or Whereto
[13:31] arabella Ella: it's philosophy of science though isn't it herman?
[13:31] arabella Ella: generalisations and induction
[13:31] Herman Bergson: The main function of scientific theory for Mach was predicting new phenomena
[13:32] itsme Frederix: not induction, deduction I guess arabella
[13:32] Stanley Aviatik: Can you generalise a sensation
[13:32] arabella Ella: i read somewhere it was induction itsme ... deduction is scientific but induction also leads our thinking to conclusions
[13:32] Herman Bergson: No I would say induction and generalisation...Mach was a verificationist.....everything had to be verified by sensations
[13:32] Siggi Piek: yes you can generalize sensations
[13:33] itsme Frederix: oke clear
[13:33] Herman Bergson: yes..he saw laws of natue as abbreviations of sensations
[13:33] Stanley Aviatik: porquoi
[13:33] Mickorod Renard: yea,,i think he wasn't into atoms..cos he couldnt see them at this stage in history
[13:34] Gemma Cleanslate: oh atoms have been around a while
[13:34] Herman Bergson: Right Mickorod..Mach refused to accept the existence of atoms
[13:34] Gudrun Odriscoll: atoms were already known at this stage, he died in 1913
[13:34] Gemma Cleanslate: in philosophy tho
[13:34] Herman Bergson: BUT....he accepted the theories...
[13:34] Mickorod Renard: ok
[13:34] Samuel Okelly: he seems to have relied heavily on inductive reasoning (believing what he senses will be the same sensory experience for others too)?
[13:34] Stanley Aviatik: quantum theory was known by then
[13:34] arabella Ella: induction and generalisation of sensations - if everyone i have seen so far who is happy is smiling then everyone who is smiling is happy
[13:34] Herman Bergson: als long as you can predict phenomena with such a theory it is ok....
[13:35] Ian Smagulov: the grimace of death
[13:35] Gemma Cleanslate: oh but is that "science"
[13:35] Stanley Aviatik: yes - but happiness is subjective and different
[13:35] Gemma Cleanslate: exactly
[13:35] arabella Ella: but it is observing behaviour
[13:35] Gudrun Odriscoll: Herman, he was an active scientist, so he developed a model because of his practice and his practice informed his philsophy
[13:35] AristotleVon Doobie: yes ara
[13:35] itsme Frederix: so stanley happiness is not the phenomonon but smiling?
[13:35] Herman Bergson: Yes Gudrun I agree...
[13:36] Stanley Aviatik: Well said Gudrun
[13:36] Zara Kraft is Online
[13:36] Stanley Aviatik: One reflects the other
[13:36] Gemma Cleanslate: science and philosophy tho are part of each other
[13:36] Herman Bergson: You see that very clearly in his philosophy..
[13:36] arabella Ella: Mach also paved the way for skinner and the stimulus response behaviourists
[13:37] Herman Bergson: Yes..when smiling is a phenomenon and happiness not empirical...
[13:37] CONNIE Eichel is Offline
[13:37] arabella Ella: ty herman that's the way i meant it
[13:37] Catt Gable is Offline
[13:37] anibrm Jung is Online
[13:38] AristotleVon Doobie: yet you would assume because of past experieance the happiness would be the cause of th smile
[13:38] itsme Frederix: Ari thats might be a deduction (I just learned)
[13:39] Herman Bergson: Well I am glad I didnt have to disappoint you today in spite of my RL circumstances...
[13:40] Stanley Aviatik: you never dissapoint Hernan
[13:40] Herman Bergson smiles
[13:40] Herman Bergson: Thnx Stanley
[13:40] Gudrun Odriscoll: I am glad that you gave the lecture today
[13:40] arabella Ella: yes me too
[13:40] Herman Bergson: me too...
[13:40] Stanley Aviatik: I think we all are
[13:40] Ian Smagulov: yes thanks my first time but very interesting
[13:40] Ze Novikov: very well done as usual
[13:41] Herman Bergson: Thank you Ze....tho this was a job in great haste..
[13:41] Ian Smagulov: not as quick as the lightening that made you jump!
[13:41] Herman Bergson: But it helps when the philosopher himself has a clear theory
[13:41] Gemma Cleanslate: Ah wellcome Ian
[13:42] AristotleVon Doobie: Well Mr. Mach makes perfect sense to me.
[13:42] Ian Smagulov: TY Gemmaa I am a new phenomenon
[13:42] Gemma Cleanslate: Be sure to read the back blogs to see how simple this class was!!!
[13:42] Stanley Aviatik: I'm an old one
[13:42] Gemma Cleanslate: in comparison that is
[13:42] Osrum Sands: Just a side note... Has anyone read the Feburary edition of the Harvard Business Review
[13:42] Ian Smagulov: lol
[13:42] Gudrun Odriscoll: why
[13:42] Osrum Sands: there is a report on Breakthrough ideas for 2008
[13:42] Herman Bergson: Why that Osrum?
[13:42] Osrum Sands: and SL gets a mention for its global educational potential
[13:43] Ze Novikov: ummm
[13:43] arabella Ella: is it on line Osrum?
[13:43] itsme Frederix: Ari but I still doubt how we can do only with sensations, there must be interpretation and therefore we need .... well Kant has some arguments
[13:43] AristotleVon Doobie: cool
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment