555: How to position Science?

Kuhn’s paradigma doctrines have generally been interpreted so as to give rise to relativism, the theory that there are no truths, 

.

or at least nothing can be asserted to be true independent of some points of view, and that disagreements between points of view are irreconcilable. 

.

The result of course is to deprive science of a position of strength from which it can defend its findings as more well justified than those of pseudo-science.

.

Of course, there are objections against this view. There are nowadays two approaches. The first one is called Realisme. Truth realism and Entity realism.

.

The realist argues that scientists ought to seek to formulate true theories that depict the structure of the universe and 

.

that the record of progress indicates that the universe has a structure largely independent of human theorizing and 

.

that our theories have provided an increasingly more accurate picture of that structure.

.

Hilary Putnam suggested in 1978 that unless one adopts a realist interpretation, the increasing predictive success achieved within the history of science would be a “miracle”.

.

Non-realists, by contrast, seek to uncouple the notions of predictive success and truth. Even Ptolemaic heliocentric planetary models were able to predict positions of planets in the sky.

.

And another question is what is meant by expressions like “approximate truth” or “progress toward truth”. 

.

No one has been able even to say what it would mean to be ‘closer to the truth’, let alone to offer criteria for determining how we could assess such proximity.

.

The “convergence-upon-truth” thesis may be unconvincing. However, there are other ways to defend realism. .

.

In particular, one may argue that the entities posited by certain scientific theories do indeed exist.

.

We can claim that there exist observable entities like  Venus, trees, the Atlantic ocean. 

.

We can extend our human senses with microscopes and the like and observe objects not registered by our bare senses.

.

Of course the conclusion that such entities exist is a conclusion based on theoretical considerations that pertain to the operation of scientific instruments.

.

This morning I read in my  newspaper that CERN had discovered again two new particles, which, however, .

.

if real, can not become phenomena for human observers, however well equipped with devices to amplify and extend the senses, qwarks, higgs particles, neutrinos…..

.

One alternative to scientific realism has long attracted some philosophers and scientists. It bears the title “instrumentalism”. 

.

This label names the view that scientific theories are useful instruments, heuristic devices, tools we employ for organizing our experience, but not literal claims about it that are either true or false.

.

It is worth noting that the history of the physical sciences from Newton onward shows a cyclical pattern of succession between realism and instrumentalism among scientists themselves. 

.

The realism of the seventeenth century, the period in which mechanism and atomism held sway, was succeeded in the eighteenth century by the ascendancy of instrumentalist approaches to science, 

.

motivated in part by the convenient way with which instrumentalism dealt with Newton’s mysterious force of gravity. 

.

By treating his theory of gravity as merely a useful instrument for calculating the motion of bodies, it could ignore the question of what gravity really is. 

.

By the nineteenth century, with advances in atomic chemistry, electricity and magnetism, the postulation of unobservable entities returned to favor among scientists.

.

 But then it again became unfashionable in the early twentieth century as problems for the realist’s interpretation of quantum mechanics as a literally true description of the world began to mount.

.

As you see, there is no clear answer to the question what science really is and in what sense it might be “right”. 

.

As gradually getting closer to the truth, as ever improving instruments or as paradigms, adhered by scientific communities?

.

Thank you …. the floor is yours … ^_^

Main Sources:

MacMillan The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2nd edition

Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 1995

A Historical Introduction to the Philosophy of Science, John Losee (2001)

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, T. Kuhn (1962)

Philosophy of Science - A contemporary introduction, Alex Rosenberg (2005)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

http://www.iep.utm.edu/

http://plato.stanford.edu/contents.html

The Discussion

[13:18] herman Bergson: If you have any remarks or questions...plz go ahead

[13:18] BerwynBangarang: Truth seems to be a slippery thing to define. we have an intuition, but what does 'truth' mean? I prefer to to think in terms of observable and explainable

[13:19] Bejiita Imako: yes something like that id say too

[13:19] Pretafox: The conflict with relativism, reminds me of the "Dependent Co-arising " that Gautama spoke of. (the buddha) were truth is based around what does or does not cause suffering to us.

[13:19] herman Bergson: that is the empiricist way indeed :-)

[13:19] Bejiita Imako: that we know is the case 100 %

[13:19] Pretafox: sorry, Berwyn if I interrupted

[13:19] Bejiita Imako: but guess its more complex then that

[13:19] herman Bergson: We are in a difficult position epistemologically...

[13:19] BerwynBangarang: yes, and it work in SL with respect to building :)

[13:20] BerwynBangarang: (done)

[13:20] herman Bergson: On the one hand  we are inclined to take a realist position....

[13:20] herman Bergson: on the other hand...truth IS a slippery concept indeed....

[13:20] Bejiita Imako: can be for sure

[13:20] herman Bergson: I have no real answer to this problem...

[13:20] Areyn Laurasia: How is truth different from fact in this case?

[13:21] herman Bergson: Science is indeed inclined to talk about facts...not about truth...

[13:21] herman Bergson: But yes we have true facts....and for instance pseudo science...

[13:21] herman Bergson: which  looks factual but isn’t

[13:21] Bejiita Imako: facts can be falsified and then are not true facts, but the definition of the word fact = truth

[13:21] Bejiita Imako: sort of

[13:22] herman Bergson: the problem here is that facts are theory laden....

[13:22] BerwynBangarang: many facts are found not be facts. It was a "fact" that caucasians had larger brains that other races. Until independent verification was tried

[13:22] Mona Rives: facts are subject of interpretation

[13:22] herman Bergson: Indeed Mona....!

[13:23] Bejiita Imako: ah yes that can be, facts are believed to be true until proven otherwise u can say

[13:23] Bejiita Imako: and then are replaced with new facts

[13:23] Bejiita Imako: about same subject

[13:24] herman Bergson: we are lead by observation and experiment....

[13:24] Areyn Laurasia: If science is more about fact finding and truth more on how to interpret the facts base on personal and other bias..

[13:24] BerwynBangarang: but that does not meet our normal intuition about facts. it means that many propostions are incorrectly accepted as fact

[13:24] herman Bergson: Yes Areyn.....like these days with big data.....

[13:25] herman Bergson: big data don’t exist....interpretations exist...of observations

[13:25] Bejiita Imako: what is definition of big data really? the LHC spewing out billions of GB every second to analyse and similar things?

[13:26] BerwynBangarang: big data is just messy data that can only be analyzed statistically. surely the data exists

[13:26] Bejiita Imako: huge amount of information

[13:26] Areyn Laurasia: are numbers and figures not measured facts?

[13:26] BerwynBangarang: no

[13:26] herman Bergson: but there you already start interpreting by choosing your statistical methods....

[13:27] herman Bergson: setting your parameters for significance

[13:27] BerwynBangarang: yes, I agree. there are ineffective methods and there are often biases.

[13:28] herman Bergson: It is a somewhat confusing situation, it seems....

[13:28] Bejiita Imako: yes

[13:28] BerwynBangarang: yes, science is difficult

[13:28] herman Bergson: on the one hand we have the activity we call science....which comes up with real results....

[13:28] herman Bergson: and on the other hand....

[13:29] Mona Rives: the goal of science is to build the model of existing world

[13:29] herman Bergson: when you start digging for a justification you run into a lot of loose ends

[13:29] herman Bergson: That is one of the issues we discussed here Mona...

[13:30] herman Bergson: Just ask yourself HOW such a model relates to reality???

[13:30] herman Bergson: Or even in general....how our concepts and theories relate to reality

[13:30] herman Bergson: or how it is possible that mathematical calculations correspond with empirical findings

[13:31] Areyn Laurasia: Truth is no end point. It's a continuous journey of discovery, opening ourselves to new ideas, facts and possibilities.

[13:31] Bejiita Imako: it sure it

[13:31] Bejiita Imako: is

[13:31] herman Bergson: Yes Areyn.....but it leaves the door open for relativism....

[13:31] herman Bergson: the idea that anything goes in science

[13:32] herman Bergson: and that is conflicting with our intuition...

[13:32] herman Bergson: It is a fascinating scenery .....science

[13:33] Pretafox: cultural relativism can lead to the view there is no such thing as evil, based on what is acceptable in one culture vs. another. Something I personally would warn children about.

[13:33] BerwynBangarang: quantum mechanics is non intuitive

[13:33] Mona Rives: human observer is restricted in tools and abilities to build the abstract model

[13:33] herman Bergson: Yes Berwyn....I agree...

[13:34] Areyn Laurasia: A lot of discoveries were made by chance. If one starts of trying to be right, all those discoveries would not have been made. How can one know what is true or not if it's not tried?

[13:34] Areyn Laurasia: *off

[13:35] herman Bergson: That is what research intends to do, I would say

[13:35] Bejiita Imako: ah

[13:36] herman Bergson: As you see, in stead of answers we only run into more questions ^_^

[13:36] Bejiita Imako: it seems so

[13:36] herman Bergson: In some sense Kuhn is right....science is an activity of a social community thta believes in certain axioms

[13:37] herman Bergson: And what we call scientific theories appear to work in explaining reality and predicting things

[13:38] Areyn Laurasia: until we get to the quantum level

[13:38] BerwynBangarang: quantum mechanics is very predictable

[13:38] herman Bergson: Yes the Quantum argumant is rather popular.....

[13:38] Bejiita Imako: than it gets really complex

[13:38] herman Bergson: unfortunately I am not a specialist in that area  :-))

[13:39] BerwynBangarang: quantum mechanics is very predictable, but non intuitive. at least to me

[13:39] herman Bergson: Physical laws can be counter intuitive....

[13:40] herman Bergson: Take Newton's laws....

[13:40] herman Bergson: He says that an object is in rest when it moves at a constant speed....

[13:40] herman Bergson: We would be inclined to say it moves....

[13:40] Beertje Beaumont: / Jag älskar datorer

[13:40] Bejiita Imako: ㋡

[13:41] Beertje Beaumont: oops

[13:41] herman Bergson: and yet is natural laws are based on that idea...among other things

[13:41] Areyn Laurasia: :)

[13:41] BerwynBangarang: he would say it is in motion, but a constant motion

[13:41] herman Bergson: yes...but it is in rest

[13:41] Bejiita Imako: an object is at rest when no forces act on it sort of

[13:41] Bejiita Imako: to accelerate or decelerate it

[13:41] herman Bergson: exactly Bejiita...

[13:41] BerwynBangarang: it is in rest in a particular inertial frame

[13:42] Bejiita Imako: yes

[13:42] herman Bergson: Well I am no physist  but this idea I found rather interesting...

[13:43] herman Bergson: Well...I think I have tortured your brains enough for today :-))

[13:43] Bejiita Imako: hehe

[13:43] herman Bergson: Thank you for your participation again....

[13:43] herman Bergson: lol and there is Rodney....

[13:43] BerwynBangarang: it has been a pleasure

[13:43] Pretafox: thank you for the talk, herman

[13:43] Rodney Handrick: hey

[13:43] herman Bergson: Class dismissed :-)))

[13:43] Beertje Beaumont: thank you Herman

[13:44] Rodney Handrick: Well, I tried...

[13:44] Bejiita Imako: cu soon again all

[13:44] herman Bergson: Yes you did Rodney...appreciated ^_^

[13:44] BerwynBangarang: thank you for the talk Herman. I am grateful even if I disagreed from time to time

[13:44] Mona Rives: thank you Herman

[13:44] Mona Rives: bye everyone

[13:44] herman Bergson: It is good to disagree, Berwyn...

[13:45] Bejiita Imako: cu soon al

[13:45] Areyn Laurasia: bye Bejiita

[13:45] bergfrau Apfelbaum: byebye Bejiita

[13:45] BerwynBangarang: So do you see that I can be an Empiricist in a virtual world ;-)

[13:45] bergfrau Apfelbaum: ty herman & class and hi Rodney :-)

[13:45] herman Bergson: I  see you are here...:-)

[13:46] Areyn Laurasia: it's only a virtual medium :)

[13:46] BerwynBangarang: giggles

[13:46] Areyn Laurasia: but the ideas transcend both

[13:46] Beertje Beaumont: have a goodnight all...bye bye

[13:46] Areyn Laurasia: goodnight, Beertje

[13:47] BerwynBangarang: I would like to believe that Areyn

[13:47] BerwynBangarang: but I don't know to to find such ideas

[13:48] Areyn Laurasia: back to the hunt :)

[13:48] herman Bergson: oh yes...have fun Areyn

[13:48] BerwynBangarang: good bye herman

[13:48] Areyn Laurasia: Ty, bye everyone

[13:49] herman Bergson: Bye

554: Shifiting paradigms...

Science is not a monolithic something. Something we have to listen to, or obey. It is not the definite answer to questions.

.

Science better can be seen as a social process, the result of the interaction between human and environment.

.

As we already did , we can reconstruct the scientific proces by looking at Aristotle’s approach, logic and mathematics.

.

Many philosophers of science, however, came to believe that something vital is lost when science is reconstructed in the categories of formal logic. 

.

It seemed to them that the proposed orthodox analyses of ‘theory’, ‘confirmation’, and ‘reduction’ bear little resemblance to actual scientific practice.

.

Thomas Kuhn (1962) showed that scientific practice wasn’t that logical and methodological at all, but governed by paradigms.

.

Paradigms are a set of “natural” laws, theories, observations, methods, instruments which was adopted by a scientific community.

.

This, what he called “normal science” is actually  a rather conservative activity. It focused mainly in things like

.

increasing the precision of agreement between observations and calculations based on the paradigm and extending the scope of the paradigm to cover additional phenomena, among some other things.

.

The pursuit of normal science proceeds undisturbed so long as application of the paradigm satisfactorily explains the phenomena to which it is applied. 

.

But certain data may be resisting the standard paradigm. If scientists believe that the paradigm yet should fit the data in question, then confidence in the paradigm may be shaken. 

.

The type of phenomena described by the data is then regarded as an anomaly. According to Kuhn,  it is the occurrence of anomalies that provides the stimulus for the invention of alternative paradigms.

.

Competing paradigms are incommensurable, that is, can not be judged by the same standard. They reflect divergent conceptual orientations. 

.

Proponents of competing paradigms see certain types of phenomena in different ways, like one group sees light as particles, while the other group sees light as waves.

.

The presence of an anomaly or two is not sufficient to cause abandonment of a paradigm. Kuhn maintained that a logic of falsification is not applicable to the case of paradigm rejection.

.

A paradigm is not rejected on the basis of a comparison of its consequences and empirical evidence. 

.

Rather paradigm rejection is a three-term relation which involves an established paradigm, a rival paradigm, and the observational evidence.

.

For example, in the Cartesian tradition, to ask what forces are acting on a body is to ask for a specification of those other bodies that are exerting pressure on that body. 

.

But in the Newtonian tradition, one may answer the question about forces without discussing action-by-contact. It suffices to specify an appropriate mathematical function.

.

In addition, although a new paradigm usually incorporates concepts drawn from the old paradigm, these borrowed concepts often are used in novel ways. 

.

For instance, in the transition from Newtonian physics to General Relativity the terms ‘space’, ‘time’, and ‘matter’ undergo a far-reaching reinterpretation.

.

When you think of my statement that science is right and that Kuhn’s position on paradigm-replacement seems to reduce the history of science to a mere succession of viewpoints,

.

you might wonder whether there really is a “being right” or do we face here relativism?

.

Thank you….if you have any questions or remarks, the floor is yours.. ^_^

The Discussion

[13:21] Corona Anatine: well it does subsume uniformitarianism

[13:21] Tama Ahn: science isn’t about being right right?

[13:21] Ciska Riverstone: thank you herman

[13:21] Corona Anatine: if the observed universe undergoes change then there will be a paradigm shift

[13:21] Corona Anatine: yes and no, Tama

[13:22] Corona Anatine: its about being right 0 but

[13:22] herman Bergson: Whether science is about being right or not , is the real question indeed Tama...

[13:22] Corona Anatine: science also defines what is right

[13:22] Gemma Cleanslate: and as we learn new information the paradigm would have to change

[13:22] herman Bergson: It is about the relation of our knowledge to reality...

[13:22] Tama Ahn: science is about exploring not about being right ideally.. doesn't make sense to set up that dichotomy

[13:23] Gemma Cleanslate: well actually I hope it is right sometimes

[13:23] Corona Anatine: but the quetions asked of reality have to be framed within the existing paradigm

[13:23] Gemma Cleanslate: it had better be right in some instances

[13:23] herman Bergson: Yes...you might say that science is a n ever increasing probability....

[13:23] Corona Anatine: one has to ask the right questions of the data

[13:23] Gemma Cleanslate: yes

[13:24] herman Bergson: the point regarding these paradigms is....

[13:24] herman Bergson: for instance measurement instruments....

[13:24] Corona Anatine: the problem with any science is that we dont know what we have not yet discovered

[13:24] Corona Anatine: and that might be vast or small

[13:24] Gemma Cleanslate: so true

[13:25] herman Bergson: they are all defined within the borders of some  theories

[13:25] Corona Anatine: partially depending on which field of research

[13:25] Corona Anatine: have to be

[13:25] herman Bergson: Take CERN….(Bejiita would jump here:-)

[13:25] Tama Ahn: but the black and white idea of being either "right" or there would be "relativism" isn’t worth much.. since the aim is to grow understanding.. not "being right" nor being relativist

[13:25] Corona Anatine: because a theory has been tested agians t reality

[13:26] herman Bergson: It searches only for particles which logically are deduced from the existing paradigm on physics

[13:26] Corona Anatine: of course

[13:26] Corona Anatine: ones that are illogical would not be sought

[13:26] Corona Anatine: its only when such appear that the paradigm shifts

[13:27] herman Bergson: I agree Tama but it still touches an old problem....

[13:27] herman Bergson: Originating from Aristotle actually

[13:27] Tama Ahn: think thats undermining the human exploration .. to think the driving force would be logic

[13:28] Corona Anatine: yes especially as some areas of leading edge physics defy logic

[13:28] Gemma Cleanslate: wonders what Aristotle would think if he were alive now

[13:28] herman Bergson: Aristotle looks at reality as a teleological reality.....

[13:28] ZANICIA Chau: define logic

[13:28] Jangle McElroy: The scientists I've met never seem to talk about absolutes, unless they are physicists.  The others seem to say things like "What we know so far." or "What we believe is probably happening." rather than the Physicists; who seem to make more absolute. They like laws, e=mc2 etc.

[13:28] ZANICIA Chau: how true

[13:29] Gemma Cleanslate: smart!

[13:29] Corona Anatine: poss because physics is closely allied to maths

[13:29] herman Bergson: That is what I mean....

[13:29] Corona Anatine: and like maths deals with things that cant be seen

[13:29] herman Bergson: the teleological character  of the enterprise Science....

[13:29] herman Bergson: Does it lead to something....

[13:29] Tama Ahn: even physicist will agree there are limits to their/our understanding

[13:29] Lizzy Pleides: you got it Jangle

[13:30] herman Bergson: Yes I agree Jangle....

[13:30] herman Bergson: as I said...science is just an increasing probability

[13:30] Corona Anatine: before we move to far from 1338 herman

[13:30] Corona Anatine: want to ask

[13:30] Corona Anatine: [13:13] .: Science better can be seen as a social process, the result of the interaction between human and environment.

[13:30] herman Bergson: But an astronomer would say...No!...there WAS the Big Bang...period....

[13:30] ZANICIA Chau: shall we say...evolving probability?

[13:31] Corona Anatine: what did you mean by social interaction with the environment

[13:31] herman Bergson: yes Zan...ok

[13:31] Gemma Cleanslate: sounds good

[13:31] herman Bergson: And if seen evolutionary.....like evolution...in an arbitrary direction

[13:31] Corona Anatine: some astronomers might but there was no big bang - there IS a big bang

[13:32] ZANICIA Chau: is?

[13:32] herman Bergson: To me the Big Bang theory is just a mental construct

[13:32] Corona Anatine: yes its is a ongoing process not an event that happen in the past

[13:32] herman Bergson: useful paradigm to explain things

[13:32] Corona Anatine: hmm

[13:32] Jangle McElroy: Science has a habit of creating paradigms that are measurable and describable with constants in very rational ways.  I'm interested in behavioral science that is driven by emotions, which aren't always rational and don't always conform to logical paradigms.

[13:32] herman Bergson: epistemologically I find it nonsense

[13:33] Corona Anatine: why so

[13:33] Tama Ahn: well there is evidence for it

[13:33] Corona Anatine: good evidence too

[13:33] ZANICIA Chau: no there isn't

[13:33] herman Bergson: there is evidence for it within the theories of the paradigm ....

[13:33] Corona Anatine: you don’t consider red shift goo devidence?

[13:33] ZANICIA Chau: theories, yes

[13:33] Tama Ahn: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)

[13:34] Tama Ahn: there is some

[13:34] ZANICIA Chau: no not at all

[13:34] herman Bergson: But there is no answer to the question where the Big Banfg took place....within the theory the question is even nonsense

[13:34] Corona Anatine: yes i see what you are saying Herman -within the paradigm

[13:34] Corona Anatine: it has no where

[13:34] Corona Anatine: because it is expanding at all points

[13:35] Jangle McElroy: no obvious ground zero within 3 dimensional space.

[13:35] herman Bergson: It is something we can not understand within out space - time perception of reality

[13:35] Corona Anatine: in effect space is expanding u but the matter withion it is held by gravity

[13:35] Tama Ahn: indeed herman.. they cant go inside black hole not to the state before the big bang but the theory of the big bang as the black hole has empirical backings

[13:35] Tama Ahn: nor*

[13:35] Corona Anatine: except its not 3d space its 4d spacetime

[13:36] Jangle McElroy: indeed

[13:36] herman Bergson: Well...

[13:36] Ciska Riverstone: or 5 with what we experience as emotion as the 5th ;)

[13:36] herman Bergson: actually this is a nice example of a paradigm of astronomy.....

[13:36] Corona Anatine: that is just clouding the isse ciska

[13:36] herman Bergson: Mathematically they even calculate with 11 dimensions....

[13:36] Corona Anatine: well yes there was Fred Hoyles idea

[13:37] Corona Anatine: or 26

[13:37] Gemma Cleanslate: amazing stuff

[13:37] Corona Anatine: but most are wrapped up within sub atomic particles

[13:37] herman Bergson: Yes Gemma..way beyond my understanding of reality :-))

[13:38] Jangle McElroy: My reality pretty much stops after Puligny Montrachet and movies.

[13:38] Lizzy Pleides: our brain seems not to be able to imagine more than 3 dimensions

[13:38] Corona Anatine: the think to remember is that each sub atomic particle has the potential for its own big bang expansion

[13:38] herman Bergson: That is my problem too Lizzy ^_^

[13:38] ZANICIA Chau: giggles

[13:38] herman Bergson: Not to talk about Kant's Ding an sich

[13:39] Corona Anatine: except you do Lizzy -unless you are saying you have no memories of the past

[13:39] Lizzy Pleides: we have something in common herman :-))

[13:39] herman Bergson: The idea that we only know our perception.....not what caused our perceptions

[13:40] Jangle McElroy: I'd argue we don't know our perception very well. an example being how eye witness reports always fail to tell exactly what happened, who was there, details change etc.

[13:40] herman Bergson: Still fundamental philosophical issues...

[13:40] Tama Ahn: but some things are more pushy about being perceived

[13:40] Tama Ahn: hehe

[13:40] ZANICIA Chau: true

[13:40] herman Bergson: oh yes Tama.....

[13:41] herman Bergson: We have to accept that there is a reality independent of our consciousness

[13:41] ZANICIA Chau: yes

[13:41] Tama Ahn: so then there might be things other than our perception since they are so pushy

[13:41] Tama Ahn: hehe

[13:41] Corona Anatine: of course - we don’t perceive everything

[13:41] Tama Ahn: sure

[13:41] Tama Ahn: so we invent tools

[13:41] Tama Ahn: to do it for us

[13:41] Corona Anatine: i think its less than 1/000 of the while em spectrum

[13:42] herman Bergson: In fact you should say that we constantly seem to have the same experiences in certain identiccal situations Tama

[13:42] Corona Anatine: yes - for example there are no square atoms

[13:42] herman Bergson: which leads to the increasing  assumption , we can not escape it...:-)

[13:43] Corona Anatine: well escape from experience is easy

[13:43] Lizzy Pleides: are you sure Corona?

[13:43] Corona Anatine: just not one we want

[13:43] Corona Anatine: oh yes death is escape from experience

[[13:43] Corona Anatine: unless you follow some religions

[13:43] Tama Ahn: well yeh its not a choice to create our own reality.. but science kinda helps understanding more about universal categories

[13:44] Corona Anatine: such as judaism with its concept of reincarnation

[13:44] herman Bergson: I think this leads to another discussion Corona....not now plz

[13:44] Tama Ahn: not personal .. and trying to go past the social

[13:44] Corona Anatine: kk

[13:44] Corona Anatine: it is heading off track i admit

[13:44] Gemma Cleanslate: :-)

[13:44] herman Bergson: Anyway....

[13:45] herman Bergson: science is caught inside its own sets of theories and so on....

[13:45] herman Bergson: thinking outside the box creates problems with those....

[13:45] Corona Anatine: is 'caught ' the right word?

[13:45] herman Bergson: but when this thinking outside the box gets stronger....a scientific "revolution" seems to take place...

[13:45] herman Bergson: a paradigm shift

[13:45] Corona Anatine: because science does permit of theory change and paradigm shift

[13:46] herman Bergson: Next time we might have a closer look of this idea of "revolution"

[13:46] Jangle McElroy: Possibly in part because we crave order and simplicity and expected outcomes. If we admitted to the chaos that surrounds our lives, it would be troubling.

[13:47] herman Bergson: and another issue is...."what is science heading for..?"

[13:47] Tama Ahn: pseudoscience hides behind those same words tho.. ideally science is very open to scrutiny

[13:47] Gemma Cleanslate: ok

[13:47] Corona Anatine: or herman might have a paradigm shift and talk about something else instead

[13:47] Tama Ahn: this is like pretending it isn't

[13:47] Tama Ahn: while it is

[13:47] Gemma Cleanslate: ♥ LOL ♥

[13:47] Gemma Cleanslate: rosie we meet every

[13:47] herman Bergson: Science should be open minded Tama...

[13:47] Gemma Cleanslate: tuesday and Thursday

[13:48] Gemma Cleanslate: and all the past classes are in the blog if you would like to check it

[13:48] Ciska Riverstone: but scientists are not necessarily all ;)

[13:48] Tama Ahn: yeh what else would scrutiny mean?

[13:48] Tama Ahn: thats part of it

[13:48] herman Bergson smiles

[13:48] herman Bergson: Guess we agree :-)

[13:48] Gemma Cleanslate: true

[13:49] herman Bergson: You got enough to ponder about for the coming weekend I guess.....

[13:49] ZANICIA Chau: Thank you Herman

[13:49] herman Bergson: So…thank you all for your motivation participation again....

[13:49] Corona Anatine: thank you Herman

[13:49] herman Bergson: Class dismissed....^_^

[13:49] Ciska Riverstone: thanx herman thanx everyone

[13:49] Beertje Beaumont: thank you Herman

[13:49] Tama Ahn: time for beer :D

[13:49] Gemma Cleanslate: ♥ Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! ♥

[13:49] Tama Ahn: yay

[13:49] Lizzy Pleides: Thank you herman!

[13:50] herman Bergson: I agree again Tama :-)

[13:50] Ciska Riverstone: sleep well or good day folks ㋡

553: The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

Till now we have focused on the methods of science, logic, mathematics. We get a different story when we take a closer look at the content of science.

.

Then we don’t see logic and reason at work, but we see man at work, the individual that associates  his achievements not only with the increase of knowledge,

.

but also with his Ego, prestige and status. Today a first look at it thus, based on the ideas of Thomas Kuhn’s “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” (1962).

.

He speaks of  'normal science’, meaning research firmly based on one or more past scientific achievements,

.

achievements by a particular scientific community that recognizes these for a long  time as a basis for its work.

.

Nowadays such achievements are listed in textbooks for beginners and advanced. These textbooks explain the essentials of the accepted theories,

.

explain their successful applications and illustrate them with relevant observations and experiments. Such books became popular in the early nineteenth century.

.

Before that Aristotle's “Physica”, Ptolemy's “Almagest”, Newton's “Principia” and “Opticks”, Franklin's “Electricity,” Lavoisier's “Traite élémentaire chimie” and Lyell's “Geology” served this function.

.

These books implicitly determined what were authorized problems and methods for successive generations of practitioners of a particular science.

.

They were able to do so, because they had two essential characteristics in common. Their performance

was sufficiently unprecedented 

.

to have a stable group of supporters kept away from competing modes of scientific activity. 

.

At the same time there remained all kinds problems enough to the group of researchers to solve them.

.

Achievements like this, Kuhn calls 'paradigms'. Existing scientific work - examples of laws, theories, applications and tools - create models for particular coherent traditions.

.

These are the traditions which historically can be describes as 'Ptolemaic' or "Copernican astronomy ',' Aristotelian 'or' Newtonian dynamics, "" particulate "or" wave optics ", etc. 

.

Historically interesting is here, that such a paradigm defined what were meaningful experiments and research and what was, so to speak, “not done’ in science.

.

For instance regarding the question, what is light? Is it waves or is it particles? Depending on what the scientific community supports, it tells what experiments are meaningful and which are not.

.

The most interesting observation here is, that after centuries of development the human mind shifted to the idea that there had to be one scientific truth only.

.

However,  no period between antiquity and the end of the seventeenth century inaugurated a generally accepted view about the nature of the light. 

.

Instead, there were a number of competing schools, which usually adhered some variant of the theories of Epicurus, Aristotle or Plato. 

.

One group took that lights consisted of particles from material bodies; for another, it was a change in the medium, which was located between body and eye; 

.

yet another one saw light in terms of an interaction between the body and something that comes from the eye

.

Thus science is controlled by the community of scientists, who adhere to a certain paradigm, a set of theories, laws and explanations.

.

Next question will be….how do these paradigms change and get overrun by a scientific revolution?

.

Thank you…. the floor is yours :-))

Main Sources:

MacMillan The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2nd edition

Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 1995

A Historical Introduction to the Philosophy of Science, John Losee (2001)

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, T. Kuhn (1962)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

http://www.iep.utm.edu/

http://plato.stanford.edu/contents.html

The Discussion 

[13:19] Roger Amdahl: well thanks Herman ... that is quite a question you leave us with

[13:19] Bejiita Imako: for sure

[13:19] Corona Anatine: well paradigm shift usually occurs when there are competing theories and one proves to be a better fit

[13:19] Beertje Beaumont: as always ㋡

[13:19] Bejiita Imako: ah

[13:19] herman Bergson: I'll dig into it and help you answer it Roger :-)

[13:19] Roger Amdahl: those paradigms are overruled by the one experiment that does not fit into their theories

[13:19] Corona Anatine: or when a new discovery undermines exisitng ideas

[13:19] Bejiita Imako: yes

[13:20] Corona Anatine: and it gains ground in the scientific community

[13:20] herman Bergson: Most important point today is that science is not primarily defined by its method, but by a paradigm....

[13:20] Corona Anatine: the false idea is to think of it as a single cmmunity

[13:20] herman Bergson: a view supported by a scientific community

[13:20] Corona Anatine: like religion there wil be competing schism

[13:20] druth Vlodovic: so is the experiment the deciding factor, or does it tend to be more about convincing personalities in the field?

[13:20] herman Bergson: if it were there never would change a thing Corona :-)

[13:21] Roger Amdahl: you can't blame a theoretical physicist have to deal with paradigms ...

[13:21] Corona Anatine: yes it would become dogma Herman

[13:21] herman Bergson: Well Druth....the later is a serious issue indeed

[13:21] Corona Anatine: personalities help to an extent

[13:22] Corona Anatine: but the process of peer review does perhaps help in this

[13:22] Corona Anatine: although such wil also of course reinfcre the exisitnign paradigm

[13:22] druth Vlodovic: scientists are humans who have put a fair amount of work into their current ideas,you have to expect some pushback,the difference with religion is that science has a moral of accepting overwhelming evidence

[13:22] herman Bergson: A nice sidetrack here is fraude in Science...:-))

[13:22] Roger Amdahl: in science everything is true, until proven wrong ... isn't that beautiful ?

[13:22] Corona Anatine: oh fraud is definitely a personality thing

[13:22] Bejiita Imako: ㋡

[13:23] herman Bergson: Yes Druth....that is what makes progress possible

[13:23] Bejiita Imako: there are lot of fraud nowadays it seems, "scientists" scaring us that everything we eat are deadly so they can sell their own ideas

[13:24] herman Bergson: Yes Bejiita.....

[13:24] Bejiita Imako: see it in paper every day almost a new such case

[13:24] Corona Anatine: [fetches Mary Midgely -evolution as a religion from her bookshelf

[13:24] herman Bergson: as soon as something becomes a money issue this happens....

[13:24] Bejiita Imako: latest is that eco farming would not sustain us and not absorb carbon dioxide and bla bla

[13:24] herman Bergson: Ahh Mary Midgley..

[13:25] Roger Amdahl: where is humans, there is fraud, thiefs, robbery ... 90% of science goes for the evidence ..and is true about it

[13:25] Corona Anatine: well yes - science is study of experimental data

[13:25] druth Vlodovic: that is more economics than science

[13:25] Corona Anatine: and of course there will always be a certain selectivity of choice in what is studied where and what quations are asked etc

[13:26] herman Bergson: Yes Corona....that is governed by the leadin paradigm...

[13:26] Bejiita Imako: however science is also somewhat hindered

[13:27] herman Bergson: so...how does a paradigm get dropped ...exchanged for another one...

[13:27] herman Bergson: that is our next question

[13:27] Corona Anatine: plus in the case of studies with corporate interests there will be pressure and - who idea gets more funding

[13:27] Bejiita Imako: take this Rossi guy, he under no circumstances want to reveal how his energy machine works, it does but how

[13:27] Bejiita Imako: and thus all say he is just a bluff

[13:27] Bejiita Imako: and Rossi prevents further fast development cause of greed i guess

[13:28] Bejiita Imako: instead of helping actually using this machine to solve energy crisis

[13:28] druth Vlodovic: what have you found in your career in your field Herman, does it tend to be more open minded, or more personality driven?

[13:28] herman Bergson: Who is Rossi, Bejiita....never heard of:-)

[13:28] Corona Anatine: it appears to happen when a new idea is taken up by increasing numbers of other scientists - such as for example plate tectonics

[13:28] Bejiita Imako: he developed some sort of reactor that produce lot of energy 

[13:28] Bejiita Imako: he just want money and all think its some sort of advanced bluff

[13:28] Corona Anatine: that sounds like the scientific equivalent of joseph smith

[13:29] Roger Amdahl: if he wait for a patent .. I understand .. else it is not done to keep science to yourself

[13:29] Bejiita Imako: would be better he revealed it , if it actually worked could solve energy crisis

[13:29] Bejiita Imako: instead of hiding it away

[13:29] Bejiita Imako: might be

[13:29] druth Vlodovic: "pay no attention to the extension cord attached to the back of the device."

[13:30] herman Bergson: sounds like a lot of bogus, Bejiita...

[13:30] Bejiita Imako: but al scientists everywhere want to check how itworks

[13:30] herman Bergson: And to answer Druth....

[13:30] Bejiita Imako: cause it indeed produce as much power as a nuclear reactor without nuclear reaction

[13:30] Bejiita Imako: its like cold fusion

[13:30] Bejiita Imako: he might have invented it or its all bluff,

[13:30] Bejiita Imako: no one knows

[13:31] herman Bergson: What I experienced in my carreer was a colleague who was terribly jealous of my achievemnts and has tried everything to shuffle me under

[13:31] Bejiita Imako: as said it seem to work

[13:31] herman Bergson: and with it he blocked a lot of positive developments

[13:31] Bejiita Imako: its called the E Cat

[13:31] Bejiita Imako: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Catalyzer

[13:32] Bejiita Imako: his machine

[13:32] Roger Amdahl: if it is nuclear power invented in the backyard of his home , he should glow in the dark ... and fusion ... pff... get real ... not possible he invented that in his backyard ... so I go for bogus

[13:32] Corona Anatine: but that is a personal politics thing Herman - does it relate to paradigm shifting ?

[13:33] herman Bergson: lol ...no Corona....I never formul;ated a paradigm for a field of science...Einstein did :-)

[13:33] herman Bergson: And I am no Einstein ^_^

[13:33] Bejiita Imako: ㋡

[13:33] Corona Anatine: not many are

[13:33] Bejiita Imako: aaaa come on now mr E = mc2

[13:33] Bejiita Imako: lol

[13:33] Bejiita Imako: ㋡

[13:33] Bejiita Imako: Einstein was special indeed

[13:33] Bejiita Imako: ahead of his time

[13:34] Bejiita Imako: but he was right

[13:34] Corona Anatine: oh yes

[13:34] Corona Anatine: no in everything

[13:34] Corona Anatine: he had problems with quantum theory

[13:34] Corona Anatine: but then so do many modern thinkers

[13:34] herman Bergson: Bejiita it is really brilliant to be able to say that einstein was right ^_^

[13:34] Bejiita Imako: hmm but can ANYONE understand that?

[13:34] Bejiita Imako: hehe

[13:34] Roger Amdahl: no Einstein was just a weirdo in his own era ... a very brilliant weirdo for sure,

[13:34] Bejiita Imako: quantum physics is even trickier then relativity theory

[13:35] Corona Anatine: it depends what you mean by 'understand'

[13:35] herman Bergson: Well..I think the point of today is clear....:-)

[13:35] Roger Amdahl: relativity is relatively simple, while quantum physics is quite predictable ...

[13:35] herman Bergson: Science is a social activity of a group of people....

[13:36] Corona Anatine: the thing to remember about quantum is that it is about vibrational wavelengths

[13:36] Bejiita Imako: string theory

[13:36] Corona Anatine: in what medium is a good question

[13:36] herman Bergson: That group takes control...their point of view is aparadigm...

[13:36] Corona Anatine: but at a basic level it is about moving fields

[13:36] Roger Amdahl: 10 spacial dimensions is enough medium ?

[13:36] Corona Anatine: indeed so herman

[13:37] Corona Anatine: might be more some say 26 dimensions

[13:37] Roger Amdahl: eeps

[13:37] herman Bergson: And please stop about quantum physics and string theory.....

[13:37] Corona Anatine: kk

[13:37] herman Bergson: completely irrelevant here :-))

[13:37] Bejiita Imako: ㋡

[13:37] Corona Anatine: yeah stick with the established paradigm

[13:38] Roger Amdahl: deal with the paradigm you earlier described, Herman :) ... quantum rocks !!!

[13:38] herman Bergson: I always get the feeling that if someone doesn’t know the right answer anymore he refers to quantum physics as the example of....bla bla :-)

[13:38] Roger Amdahl: *smiles

[13:38] Bejiita Imako: ehe

[13:38] Corona Anatine: yes it does but it disputs paradigms cos it allows all side to be right at the same time

[13:38] herman Bergson: Yes Roger it rocks indeed ^_^

[13:39] herman Bergson: Ok...we'll get to that issue in future lectures :-)

[13:39] herman Bergson: For today...thank you all again for your participation:-)

[13:39] herman Bergson: Class dismissed ...^_^

[13:40] Corona Anatine: a small question -does religion with god behind everything count as a separate paradigm?

[[13:40] druth Vlodovic: I'm not sure this relates directly to science as a social activity,but the page on the energy catalyzer suggests you can't get as patent on something that doesn't work

[13:40] Corona Anatine: one would hope not

[13:40] druth Vlodovic: that can't be true or new things would be very hard to make money from

[13:40] bergfrau Apfelbaum: ty herman & class!

[13:40] Corona Anatine: otherwise you could patent alien death rays made of wood

[13:41] Bejiita Imako: if he want to et some luck with e cat he beter show that his device really work and how, scintific organisations dont grant bogus patents

[13:41] druth Vlodovic: well,why not? that would just prevent other people from making alien death rays made of wood in the same design as yours

[13:41] herman Bergson: Who is this Rossi, Bejiita....what nationality?

[13:41] Corona Anatine: ones with any credibility anyway

[13:41] herman Bergson: Where does he work?

[13:41] Bejiita Imako: Italian

[13:41] Corona Anatine: sounds italian

[13:42] Bejiita Imako: Andrea Rossi

[13:42] druth Vlodovic: I thought the patent office was a political/government thing,rather than scientific organization

[13:42] herman Bergson: In Peyton Place there also was a doctor Rossi...:-)

[13:42] Corona Anatine: it is a gov funded body yes

[13:42] Beertje Beaumont: lol..you said it a sec earlier than I

[13:42] Bejiita Imako: ok

[13:42] Roger Amdahl: Peyton Place ...?? Herman , you're old !

[13:42] Corona Anatine: does not mean it is gov influenced by political thought

[13:42] herman Bergson: 65

[13:43] Roger Amdahl: LOL

[13:43] Beertje Beaumont: omg 65!

[13:43] Bejiita Imako: ㋡

[13:43] Beertje Beaumont: jeez

[13:43] Corona Anatine: you couldn’t tell from his avi?

[13:43] Corona Anatine: not that old

[13:43] herman Bergson: so young enough to have seen Peyton Place in black and white

[13:43] Corona Anatine: 65 is not old

[13:43] Roger Amdahl: :)

[13:44] herman Bergson: it is a number Corona...that is all :-)

[13:44] druth Vlodovic: lol

[13:44] Beertje Beaumont: all old man say that...

[13:44] Corona Anatine: yes -age is a state of mind

[13:44] herman Bergson: I'll talk to you later Beertje ^_^

[13:44] Beertje Beaumont: grins..

552: Landing on an asteriod...

Why Science is Right is a complex statement, when looked at from a philosophical point of view. But sometimes I am inclined to say that science is breath taking.

.

For those who didn’t hear the news, yesterday there landed a small lander on a comet. Rosetta is a robotic space probe built and launched by the European Space Agency to perform a detailed study of comet 67P  with both an orbiter, and lander module Philae.

.

Rosetta was launched on 2 March 2004 on an Ariane 5 rocket. reached the comet on 6 August 2014, becoming the first spacecraft to orbit a comet. 

.

On 20 January 2014, Rosetta was taken out of a 31-month hibernation mode and continued towards the comet. It reached the comet on 6 August 2014, becoming the first spacecraft to orbit a comet.

.

Philae, the lander module, detached from Rosetta on 12 November 2014 at 08:35 UTC, with an estimated landing seven hours later. Confirmation of landing on Comet 67P reached Earth on 12 November 2014 at 16:03 UTC.

.

We are investigating scientific method here and so far we made a few points, that is, revealed a few basic assumptions of scientific method and rationality.

.

First there is the assumption, that at the basis of any scientific thinking is logic, in the West first formalized by Aristotle.

.

A second assumption was, that our reality is mathematical, calculable. This belief has emerged from the magical-metaphysical thinking of Pythagoras, where this aspect of reality originally had a kind of religious meaning.

.

A third assumption was that science should follow a specific method to create knowledge: the inductive - deductive procedures, as described by Aristotle.

.

And  now we launched an object into space that traveled millions of kilometers during more than ten years and drops a lander on a comet some 6 million kilometers away from here. All math was flawless. It landed.

.

The roots of this amazing achievement grow deep into history. To keep the picture clear, on the one hand we talk about scientific method,

.

and on the other hand we can talk about the content of science, to which the method is applied. In this case it is applied to our observations of the sky and the stars.

.

And thence you could say that this achievement is connected with a man like Galileo Galilei (1564 - 1642). He was convinced that the book of nature is written in the language of mathematics.

.

For this reason, he sought to restrict the scope of physics to assertions about “primary qualities”. Primary qualities are qualities essential to the very concept of body. 

.

Galileo believed that primary qualities such as shape, size, number, position, and “quantity of motion”, are objective properties of bodies, 

.

and that secondary qualities, such as colors, tastes, odors, and sounds, exist only in the mind of the perceiving subject.

.

By restricting the subject-matter of physics to primary qualities and their relations, Galileo excluded teleological explanations from the range of permissible discourse of physics.

.

According to Aristotle motion of an object was IN ORDER to reach its “natural place”, like the ground is for the falling stone.

. 

To put it in a simple way, according to Aristotle things were explained with regard of their goal, like an acorn develops roots in order to become an oak, a stone falls in order to get to its natural place.

.

Galileo realized that he could not prove false an assertion such as “unsupported bodies move toward the Earth in order to reach their “natural place’.” 

.

But he also realized that this type of interpretation can be excluded from physics because it fails to “explain” the phenomena.

.

To say that the acorn develops roots in order to become an oak is not a scientific explanation for the fact that an acorn develops roots.

.

Galileo replaced Aristotle’s qualitatively differentiated world by a quantitatively differentiated  world. And thence science developed in such a way that we were able to calculate the whole journey of Rosetta in advance.

.

Thank you…. the floor is yours.. ^_^

.

The Discussion

[13:16] Bejiita Imako: And thus we see proof hat math is really natures language

[13:16] herman Bergson: Yes Bejiita even tho we do not understand the relation

[13:17] Gemma Cleanslate: amazing stuff

[13:17] herman Bergson: But I have some ideas about it.....

[13:17] Bejiita Imako: this experiment is a huge achievement for sure, i just hope they can get proper control of it and reposition it without it flying away

[13:17] Gemma Cleanslate: hope so

[13:17] Gemma Cleanslate: of fall off the comet

[13:18] Gemma Cleanslate: or*

[13:18] Corona Anatine: ok i would make the point about distinguishing sceicne and its application of technology/engineering

[13:18] Bejiita Imako: look forward to some good pics of that comet, as i see it seem not to be ice but more like rock

[13:18] Bejiita Imako: like an asteroid

[13:18] herman Bergson: Nice but not our issue today  Bejiita, but I agree with you :-))

[13:18] Bejiita Imako: ㋡

[13:18] Corona Anatine: sci and tech are closely related but not exactly the same

[13:18] Lizzy Pleides: we probably still do not know all mathematical rules to calculate everything

[13:18] Bejiita Imako: it show what science can do

[13:19] Bejiita Imako: true Lizzy

[13:19] Corona Anatine: well chaos and sensitivity to initial conditions determine that

[13:19] Bejiita Imako: probably not

[13:19] Corona Anatine: even our best rockets have a way to adjust slightly

[13:19] herman Bergson: No we don’t Lizzy, but your statement also seems to imply that eventually EVERYTHING is calcuable...

[13:19] Dings Digital: the idea is that the rejection of teleology (goals) led to the big explosion of scientific knowledge. science today works without teleology. though it took some time after Galileo for that idea to spread, I guess

[13:20] Bejiita Imako: ah

[13:20] Lizzy Pleides: that is the question herman

[13:20] herman Bergson: Indeed Dings....

[13:20] herman Bergson: But what is so interesting is , is the question why developed things like this...

[13:21] Corona Anatine: another point i have a small issue with is the list of 'secondary qualities - such as colour and taste odour and sounds

[13:21] Corona Anatine: those are quantifiable

[13:21] herman Bergson: take for instance this idea of primary and secundary qualities....

[13:21] Corona Anatine: sounds are qualities - music is not

[13:21] Corona Anatine: sound is primary music secondaty

[13:21] herman Bergson: Why did the brain make that distinction....?

[13:22] Corona Anatine: secondary qualities would be those with an esthetic element

[13:22] Corona Anatine: which is subjective

[13:22] herman Bergson: I think it is an indication for the fact that what we call science is the result of an evolutionary interaction between organism (homo sapiens) and environment

[13:22] Corona Anatine: can it be anything else?

[13:23] ZANICIA Chau: excuse me sorry late

[13:23] Corona Anatine: QED

[13:23] herman Bergson: Some people think so Corona...not me

[13:23] Gemma Cleanslate: what do others think

[13:23] Corona Anatine: well science is 'study of the world = environment'

[13:23] herman Bergson: Religious interpretations of reality...

[13:24] Gemma Cleanslate: hmmm

[13:24] Corona Anatine: it has nothing it can say about supernatural things - cos they cant be studied - and if they could be then they would not be supernatural

[13:24] Gemma Cleanslate: i am sure galileo would agree

[13:24] Bejiita Imako: yes

[13:24] Bejiita Imako: indeed

[13:25] Bejiita Imako: if you manage to see a ghost u can probably use science to define what a ghost really is

[13:25] Bejiita Imako: as example

[13:25] Dings Digital: so either color or love are somehow mathematical or they are not at all :)

[13:25] Corona Anatine: but do religions have an interpretation of reality - surely they only offer alternatives to its cause

[13:25] Gemma Cleanslate: they think so

[13:25] herman Bergson: I gotGood point Dings....!

[13:25] Bejiita Imako: colors at least, you can describe them in a computer as a color code

[13:26] Corona Anatine: well colour is a definable quality

[13:26] Bejiita Imako: as example

[13:26] Bejiita Imako: but love?

[13:26] Corona Anatine: as it is about absorbtion of specific wavelengths

[13:26] herman Bergson: Hold on plz and stick to the remark of Dings

[13:26] Corona Anatine: well first you would need to define love

[13:26] herman Bergson: Is love mathematical....?

[13:26] Bejiita Imako: love is a feeling

[13:26] Corona Anatine: it has been measured in terms of brain chemicals

[13:26] herman Bergson: I hear a similar remark....

[13:27] Corona Anatine: but its subjective application is not measurable

[13:27] Bejiita Imako: probably very hard to do

[13:27] Bejiita Imako: much more complicated

[13:27] herman Bergson: it was concerning social care....

[13:27] Corona Anatine: well partly because the term love is applied to several differne things

[13:27] Lizzy Pleides: first you have to define the term ”Love”

[13:28] Corona Anatine: exactly

[13:28] Bejiita Imako: yes

[13:28] ZANICIA Chau: emotion

[13:28] Bejiita Imako: that too

[13:28] herman Bergson: is social care  love for the other + time you spend on taking care of things for that person....

[13:28] Bejiita Imako: color is well color but love is a wider term

[13:28] Lizzy Pleides: hormone driven sometimes

[13:28] Corona Anatine: yes

[13:28] herman Bergson: or is social care just needing time for taking care of the other in a material sense

[13:29] Bejiita Imako: and positive feeling

[13:29] Corona Anatine: it could be said that love is an attraction for something that goes beyond the basic objective state

[13:30] herman Bergson: What here is the issue m, is that we have become to believe that everything is quantify able...

[13:30] Dings Digital: yes

[13:30] Corona Anatine: everything material is quantifiable

[13:30] herman Bergson: at least...that is what the economists try to make us believe

[13:30] Corona Anatine: its just that not everything is material

[13:30] Bejiita Imako: many things are but not everything, at least it is very hard to directly put a value on them

[13:30] herman Bergson: Which shows the relevance of Ding's remark

[13:30] Bejiita Imako: feelings is a such thing

[13:31] Lizzy Pleides: maybe everything is quantifiable but there are millions of aspects soemtimes

[13:31] ZANICIA Chau: this brings me back to the grey areas that I mentioned last time. They have to be recognized

[13:31] Bejiita Imako: that too Liz

[13:31] Bejiita Imako: id say

[13:31] Dings Digital: Lizzy, I was just thinking that

[13:31] herman Bergson: Yes Zan....

[13:31] Gemma Cleanslate: interesting

[13:31] Bejiita Imako: indeed

[13:32] herman Bergson: This space event is some boost for the idea that we can calculate everything.....which is a bad idea

[13:32] Corona Anatine: well the picture of the comet is a good illustration of these things - the image is quantifiable - but what you think of the achievement is not

[13:32] Ciska Riverstone: well - it did not all worked out as planned

[13:32] herman Bergson: In physics math applies...an event like this proves it...

[13:32] Ciska Riverstone: for that space event

[13:32] Bejiita Imako: ah

[13:33] herman Bergson: That were technical glitches Gemma ^_^

[13:33] Corona Anatine: well given the number of unknown factors its pretty good what they have acheived

[13:33] Ciska Riverstone: well it does not completely herman

[13:33] herman Bergson: But the main thing is...is everything mathematical....

[13:33] Ciska Riverstone: otherwise the landing would have worked out as planned

[13:33] Ciska Riverstone: we need to see the reality

[13:34] Corona Anatine: amths can in theory be applied to everything - whether that would be a vlaid application is another matter

[13:34] ZANICIA Chau: I see it as millions of dollars of waste that could have been spent helping humans in need on THIS planet

[13:34] herman Bergson: And in fact we already have the answer to that question....NO :-)

[13:34] Ciska Riverstone: the truth is in the material world there are always influences which are not calculable - at least not yet

[13:35] herman Bergson: they never will , I would say Ciska...

[13:35] Corona Anatine: yes and millions are being spent on helping humans on this planet - unfortunately there are other agencies spending as much maoney on hindering

[13:35] ZANICIA Chau: yes

[13:35] ZANICIA Chau: imbalance

[13:35] herman Bergson: and the reason for that statement is that in so many areas we have to rely only on statistics...

[13:35] herman Bergson: which is just calculated guesswork :-)

[13:36] ZANICIA Chau: That also Herman

[13:36] Bejiita Imako: i use to say, there are lies, damn lies and statistics

[13:36] Ciska Riverstone: and the real question to solve is why that is

[13:36] Bejiita Imako: ㋡

[13:36] herman Bergson: No it wasn’t you Bejiita..lol

[13:36] ZANICIA Chau: lol

[13:36] Bejiita Imako: maybe heard it before

[13:36] Corona Anatine: nothing wrong with stats - its the use they are put to which constituteds the lies

[13:36] Bejiita Imako: its a classic here in Sweden

[13:36] Beertje Beaumont: sorry I have to go..rl is calling

[13:36] Bejiita Imako: yes if properly used and with correct data its good

[13:36] Beertje Beaumont: have a goodnight all

[13:36] Gemma Cleanslate: Bye, Bye  ㋡ 

[13:37] ZANICIA Chau: Goodnight

[13:37] Bejiita Imako: bye beertje

[13:37] herman Bergson: is a classic since the 19th century...

[13:37] Ciska Riverstone: sleep well folks and a good day for the day folks

[13:37] Bejiita Imako: ㋡

[13:37] Corona Anatine: sleep well ciska

[13:37] Bejiita Imako: bye Ciska

[13:37] herman Bergson: Wasnt it D'Israeli, a british prime minister who actually said it?

[13:37] Ciska Riverstone: night everyone ㋡

[13:37] ZANICIA Chau: you too Ciska

[13:38] Corona Anatine: what did disraleli say

[13:38] Bejiita Imako: well statistics are prone to misuse for sure

[13:38] herman Bergson: the statement about lies and statistics

[13:38] Corona Anatine: all scine cna be misused

[13:38] Corona Anatine: science can

[13:39] Corona Anatine: it is up to humanity to minimise that

[13:39] Bejiita Imako: hmm right now we have "scientists" that say you get cancer from that and that and other things that turn out not to be true

[13:39] Bejiita Imako: just to scare people

[13:39] Bejiita Imako: and create meaningless debates

[13:39] Corona Anatine: that is a very negative view

[13:39] Bejiita Imako: i read about such cases almost everyday

[13:39] herman Bergson: Ok back to our subject of today...

[13:39] Gemma Cleanslate: we talked about the first session

[13:40] Corona Anatine: the research that is done probably back their results

[13:40] Gemma Cleanslate: bad science

[13:40] Bejiita Imako: milk make u old, aspartam gives u cancer

[13:40] Bejiita Imako: such things

[13:40] Corona Anatine: the problem is that not all u humans have the same physiology

[13:40] herman Bergson: It was a pleasure to me to tell you that Galilei actually made this lander touch down on the comet :-)

[13:40] Bejiita Imako: YAY! (yay!)

[13:41] Bejiita Imako: cheers to him!

[13:41] Gemma Cleanslate: i believe itl ol

[13:41] Bejiita Imako: and to Rosetta!

[13:41] Corona Anatine: [even if it did bounce]

[13:41] herman Bergson: I hope you see the historical roots of this historical event...:-)

[13:41] Corona Anatine: oh yes for sure

[13:41] Bejiita Imako: ys

[13:41] bergfrau Apfelbaum: ty herman!!

[13:41] Bejiita Imako: would be nice

[13:41] Gemma Cleanslate: yes

[13:41] Gemma Cleanslate: ♥ Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! ♥

[13:41] herman Bergson: Then thank youall again for your patient ears :-)

[13:41] Bejiita Imako:  \o/

[13:41] Bejiita Imako:    ||   Hoooo!

[13:41] Bejiita Imako:   / \

[13:41] herman Bergson: and your participation :-))

[13:42] ZANICIA Chau: Thank you Herman

[13:42] Corona Anatine: we have come a long way since the comet were seen as foretellign malignant events

[13:42] Bejiita Imako: nice Herman

[13:42] Gemma Cleanslate: off to a new LEA exhibit opening

[13:42] herman Bergson: Class dismissed..^_^

[13:42] Bejiita Imako: aaa ok

[13:42] Gemma Cleanslate: Bye, Bye  ㋡ 

[13:42] Lizzy Pleides: Thank you!

[13:42] herman Bergson: Have fun Gemma

[13:42] Bejiita Imako: hmm maybee i should check out

[13:42] Bejiita Imako: cu

[13:42] Bejiita Imako: ㋡

[13:42] Gemma Cleanslate: darn it is full

[13:42] bergfrau Apfelbaum: byebye Gemmaaa :o)

[13:42] Gemma Cleanslate GIGGLES!!

[13:42] Gemma Cleanslate: ...LOL...

45] Corona Anatine: ah right lik ein the sims 3 game