548: Is reality mathematical....?

In my previous lecture I showed you scientific inquiry slowly moved from conceptual to mathematical. The origin of this move is Pythagoras, who regarded the universe as mathematical.

.

There is mathematics everywhere in science nowadays. Without it there would not be science. We use mathematics, in fact in a rather pragmatic way: it just works.

.

But the question “Why is reality mathematical” kept bothering me. Is it the right question or is it just a silly question? I thought: let’s Google “Why is reality mathematical”.

.

The result was…on one word……exciting. The question showed to be philosophical gold. I am not the only one who is wondering about it.

.

First hit was “Our Mathematical Universe: My Quest for the Ultimate Nature of Reality”, (2014) is a nonfiction book by Swedish-American cosmologist Max Tegmark. 

.

Written in popular science format, the book interweaves what a New York Times reviewer called "an informative survey of exciting recent developments in astrophysics and quantum theory" with Tegmark's mathematical universe hypothesis, which posits that reality is a mathematical structure.

.

This mathematical nature of the universe, Tegmark argues, has important consequences for the way researchers should approach many questions of physics. So the Pythagorean spirit is still alive.

.

But some critic already raises the question…..”perhaps the most important question about Tegmark’s claim is, Does it matter, except perhaps to those interested in metaphysics? 

.

Most of his assertions can’t be tested, and whether you accept them as true or not seems to make no difference to the future development of physics.” — end quote

.

At least the question keeps thinkers and scientist still busy. Then take this story:

.

When Albert Einstein finally completed his general theory of relativity in 1916, he looked down at the equations and discovered an unexpected message: the universe is expanding.

.

Einstein didn't believe the physical universe could shrink or grow, so he ignored what the equations were telling him. 

.

Thirteen years later, Edwin Hubble found clear evidence of the universe's expansion. Einstein had missed the opportunity to make the most dramatic scientific prediction in history.

.

How did Einstein's equations "know" that the universe was expanding when he did not? If mathematics is nothing more than a language we use to describe the world, an invention of the human brain, how can it possibly churn out anything beyond what we put in?

.

Then we go to the question: “Does Mathematics Reflect Reality?” on the site www.marxist.com and there we read this answer:

.

The content of "pure" mathematics is ultimately derived from the material world. The idea that the truths of mathematics are a special kind of knowledge that is inborn or of divine inspiration does not bear serious examination. 

.

Mathematics deals with the quantitative relations of the real world. Its so-called axioms only appear to be self-evident to us because they are the product of a long period of observation and experience of reality.

.

Unfortunately, this fact seems to be lost on many present-day theoretical mathematicians who delude themselves into thinking that their "pure" subject has nothing to do with the crude world of material things.

.

This is a clear example of the negative consequences of carrying the division of labour to the extreme.

.

From Pythagoras onwards, the most extravagant claims have been made on behalf of mathematics, which has been portrayed as the queen of the sciences, the magic key opening all doors of the universe. 

.

Breaking free from all contact with the physical world, mathematics appeared to soar into the heavens, where it acquired a god-like existence, obeying no rule but its own. 

.

Thus, the great mathematician Henri Poincaré, in the early years of this century, could claim that the laws of science did not relate to the real world at all, but represented arbitrary conventions destined to promote a more convenient and "useful" description of the corresponding phenomena. 

.

Certain theoretical physicists now openly state that the validity of their mathematical models does not depend upon empirical verification, but on the aesthetic qualities of their equations. End of www.marxist.com

.

When sending such a question into the Google Universe and then being rewarded with such an abundance of information is really exciting.

.

It is exciting to read, how justified the question is. Is reality mathematical? If so, how can that be the case? How did we discover this? It looks like a miracle.

. 

Thank you… ^_^

.

One concluding message: Next week we’ll make a short Autumnbreak. Thus we’ll also avoid one week of confusion due to asynchronous changing to daylight saving time in the US and Europe….^_^

547: Is science really inductive - deductive in reasoning?

In the previous two lectures I presented to you the inductive-deductive method of scientific inquiry as developed by Aristotle.

 .

He cited the syllogism in Barbara as the paradigm of scientific demonstration. 

 .

 Barbara is the medieval acronym or mnemonic for the A - A -A syllogism.  This syllogism consists of A-type statements arranged in the following way:

                    All birds need food.

                    All chicken are birds.

               ∴ All chicken need food.

 .

This had a great impact on the ideas about the growth of knowledge. What the scientist should do is observe and gather more and more knowledge about all this and all that.

 .

Science thus becomes the total of facts, theories and methods,which are  collected in the current textbooks. And the scientist is the person who adds bits and pieces time and again.

 .

According to such opinions, science develops by the addition of new truths to the stock of old truths, 

 .

or the increasing approximation of theories to the truth, and in the odd case, the correction of past errors. 

 .

Such progress might accelerate in the hands of a particularly great scientist, but progress itself is guaranteed by the scientific method.

 .

Thomas Samuel Kuhn (1922–1996) is one of the most influential philosophers of science of the twentieth century, perhaps the most influential. 

 .

In his 1962 book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions he questions this way of looking at this apparently linear growth of knowledge.

 .

The traditional way of looking at the history of science is asking which man or woman discovered which fact or law and what was the next step.

 .

The other question is, what kind of errors, superstition and myths were hindering the development of science then.

 .

But when do you call something myth and when real science? In many early stages of development of sciences you see a continuous competition between philosophies of nature.

 .

These different schools did not differ in scientific method. They all relied on empirical observation and logic, but the decision what the real scientific answer was in a certain issue was also decided by other aspects.

 .

It means that the development of science is not just guided by observations, more observations and more discoveries.

 .

In the days of Galileo and Kepler the growth of knowledge is not just decided by scientific method and more observations.

 .

There were parties involved with their own interests. So, what is scientifically right or wrong is not only decided by method and observation.

 .

Such a party for instance also decides what are the right questions to ask, what is the right direction to search.

 .

[For instance, these days, there are questions like, what is the alternative for the gasoline driven combustion engine?

 .

I guess everyone knows a story about someone who really asked that question a 60 years ago and how a whole scientific community qualified such a question as nonsense.

 .

The following of rules (of logic, of scientific method, etc.) was regarded as the absolute condition of rationality. 

 .

Kuhn claims however that scientists do not just employ rules in reaching their decisions and this would imply that de development of science isn’t such a linear process at all.

 .

And he holds the view that it is impossible that we can distinguish between the psychological process of thinking up an idea and the logical process of justifying its claim to truth.

 .

.

This puts science in a special daylight and forces us to think over the claim that science is right, really thoroughly.

.

Thank you ... ^_^

The Discussion

[13:22]  Lizzy Pleides: Thank you herman!

[13:22]  Dawn Rhiannyr: thank you Herman

[13:23]  Dawn Rhiannyr: trying again to say Thank you Herman

[13:23]  herman Bergson: It took till 1962 that we left the Aristotelian idea of growth of knowledge

[13:24]  herman Bergson: The interesting thing here is,is the idea that scientific development is not completely guided and controlled by logic and method

[13:24]  Merlin Saxondale: All I know about 1962 is that it was the year the Beatles became known

[13:25]  herman Bergson: oh....^_^...it was that year/ :-))

[13:25]  Merlin Saxondale: hehe yes but I cannot see the connection with logic

[13:25]  Lizzy Pleides: by which other reasons is it guided?

[13:26]  herman Bergson: oh many....

[13:26]  herman Bergson: pretige, vanity, stubbornness, financial interests, tradition, name it

[13:26]  herman Bergson: the pressure of the group....

[13:27]  herman Bergson: Don't think out of the box...!

[13:27]  Lizzy Pleides: and some new insight have been discovered by accident

[13:27]  herman Bergson: You even may wonder whether it only have been some insights

[13:28]  Lizzy Pleides: i always loved the idea of brainstorming

[13:28]  herman Bergson: Like Kunh doesn’t split up the psychology of grabbing an idea and the rational justification of the idea

[13:29]  herman Bergson: Such a justification is almost always afterwards...

[13:29]  Lizzy Pleides: true

[13:29]  herman Bergson: That is what I learnt  about methodology.....

[13:29]  Lizzy Pleides: not only in science

[13:30]  herman Bergson: the scientific procedure is described in detail....

[13:30]  herman Bergson: and in the scientific article afterwards too.....

[13:31]  herman Bergson: But in reality it is just a big mess when working on your research :-))

[13:31]  Merlin Saxondale: There was a TV series by James Burke in the 70's or so....

[13:32]  Merlin Saxondale: Maybe called connections or something... he showed how scientific developments depended on previous ones

[13:32]  Lizzy Pleides: abit like in statistics, you say what you want and somebody makes a statistic which to proves it

[13:32]  herman Bergson: hehe...you look cute with your iPhone Merlin ^_^

[13:32]  Merlin Saxondale: lol

[13:33]  Merlin Saxondale: Oh Dawn has gone.... I didn’t see her go

[13:33]  herman Bergson: Yes....in real life it often goes like this...you get some idea...more or less intuitively...

[13:34]  herman Bergson: You look around for some confirming data.....

[13:34]  herman Bergson: then begin to work somewhat more systematically.....

[13:35]  herman Bergson: and in the scientific article you tell the story as if it all went along the lines of correct methodology

[13:35]  Merlin Saxondale: oh yes ... looking for confirming data can be dangerous

[13:35]  Merlin Saxondale: There have been some cases of researchers rigging their data to suit their theory

[13:35]  herman Bergson: hehe..if you can find them ...some even create them themselves.....

[13:35]  herman Bergson: like this Dutch prof. Stapel...

[13:36]  herman Bergson: some cases, Merlin????

[13:36]  Merlin Saxondale: Even some of the great scientists of the past did it somewhat... Millican?

[13:36]  herman Bergson: Even so bad...a cardiology prof rigged his data....went all over the world....

[13:36]  Lizzy Pleides: many I guess

[13:36]  herman Bergson: His conclusions may have caused the death of people even

[13:37]  Merlin Saxondale: oh dear

[13:37]  Lizzy Pleides: some are unscrupulous

[13:37]  herman Bergson: yes...it was about the use of beta blockers in relation to surgical operations on patients with heart problems

[13:38]  Merlin Saxondale: yes, they used to say that 90% of all the scientists who have ever lived are still alive now

[13:38]  Merlin Saxondale: Probably not true any more

[13:38]  Merlin Saxondale: but there are some career scientists funded by the government

[13:39]  herman Bergson: yes....and that influences the research....

[13:39]  Merlin Saxondale: Getting political even without Bejiita

[13:39]  herman Bergson: Ahhh :-)))

[13:39]  Merlin Saxondale: yes it does indeed Herman

[13:40]  herman Bergson: Thomas Kuhn was one of the first to point out such features in the development of knowledge

[13:40]  Lizzy Pleides: science seems to be subordinated to economy at first

[13:40]  herman Bergson: today you might say that indeed...

[13:41]  Lizzy Pleides: why we don't have already medicin against ebola, it was a disease of the poor 

[13:41]  herman Bergson: For instance....people love to do research which generate results which are popular in the media

[13:41]  Merlin Saxondale: Yes Lizzy

[13:41]  Lizzy Pleides: now its getting interesting

[13:42]  Merlin Saxondale: Or, ... it was once

[13:42]  Lizzy Pleides: it is increasing

[13:42]  Merlin Saxondale: What happens if it gets to London?

[13:42]  herman Bergson: YEs....That might be a very clear reason why what is happening to day is happening...

[13:43]  Merlin Saxondale: Just think if the crowds in the underground stations

[13:43]  herman Bergson: Because...all of a sudden there yet is some vaccin in Canada developed.....but only in a small quantity...

[13:43]  Lizzy Pleides: it might become the ”pestilence ” of our time

[13:43]  Merlin Saxondale: On radio today..... Ebola mutates and could even become airborne etc

[13:44]  herman Bergson: I don't think so, Lizzy :-)

[13:44]  Merlin Saxondale: albeit unlikely they say

[13:44]  Lizzy Pleides: why you don't think so herman?

[13:45]  herman Bergson: The development in Africa is mainly caused by the fact that people lack the understanding of the situation....

[13:45]  herman Bergson: They even hide their sick people....want to go to their tribal medicine man...

[13:45]  herman Bergson: Are scared of western medicine.....

[13:46]  herman Bergson: Just look at the TV images....

[13:46]  herman Bergson: People dressed like martians come  to your house....

[13:46]  herman Bergson: People who havent seen a European ever, for instance....can't read or write.....

[13:47]  herman Bergson: It is a very sad situation.....

[13:47]  Merlin Saxondale: Well the latest who got it in USA died of it

[13:47]  Lizzy Pleides: oh yes

[13:47]  Lizzy Pleides: in germany too

[13:47]  Merlin Saxondale: despite modern medicine

[13:47]  Lizzy Pleides: and in spain

[13:47]  herman Bergson: No No Merlin.....

[13:47]  Merlin Saxondale: No?

[13:47]  herman Bergson: The one in the US>....

[13:48]  herman Bergson: there are reports that the people at the hospital didn’t take the proper precautions and soon....

[13:48]  Merlin Saxondale: yes I agree

[13:48]  Lizzy Pleides: they must have made mistakes in hygiene

[13:49]  Merlin Saxondale: but that shows that simple avoidance of the primitive is not enough

[13:49]  herman Bergson: Yes they had...

[13:49]  herman Bergson: true.....

[13:49]  herman Bergson: But I don’t believe it ever can become epidemic here in Europe

[13:50]  Lizzy Pleides: did we wander off the topic now?

[13:50]  Merlin Saxondale: lol

[13:50]  herman Bergson: We are too well organized for that

[13:50]  herman Bergson: I guess we did :-))

[13:50]  Merlin Saxondale: As ever Lizzy

[13:50]  herman Bergson: So time to dismiss class ^_^

[13:51]  herman Bergson: thank you  for your participation :-)

[13:51]  Lizzy Pleides: thank you again herman!

546: Deductive reasoning.....

It seems all so obvious. We live, we observe. We see things, see that they have properties like shape and color.

Then our mind translates these observations in words and we are able to say “Look! That rose is red.”

We even can wonder about the question “Are all roses red?” We use induction and reason, if this flower is blue and all roses are red then this can not be a rose.

To use it might look so trivial, but in fact it is the most amazing thing our brain has ever produced: inductive and deductive reasoning.

So, Aristotle observed, that we fist gather information, the inductive stage. Based on our observations we come to generalizations.

In the second stage of scientific inquiry, the generalizations reached by induction are used as premisses for the deduction of statements about the initial observations. 

Aristotle placed an important restriction on the kinds of statements that can occur as premisses and conclusions of deductive arguments in science. 

He allowed only those statements which assert that one class is included within, or is excluded from, a second class. 

On the picture next to me you see the famous Venn diagrams, which visualize the ideas of Aristotle.

John Venn,  (4 August 1834 – 4 April 1923) was an English logician and philosopher

If ‘S’ and ‘P’ are selected to stand for the two classes, the statements that Aristotle allowed are:

A       All S are P S wholly included in P

E      No S are P S wholly excluded from P

 I      Some S are P S partially included in P

O     Some S are not P S partially excluded from P

Aristotle held that type A is the most important of these four types. 

He believed that certain properties inhere essentially in the individuals of certain classes, 

and that statements of the form ‘All S are P’ reproduce the structure of these relations. It tells us how Aristotle looked at reality.

Perhaps for this reason, Aristotle maintained that a proper scientific explanation should be given in terms of statements of this type. 

More specifically, he cited the syllogism in Barbara as the paradigm of scientific demonstration. 

Barbara is the medieval acronym or mnemonic for the A - A -A syllogism.  This syllogism consists of A-type statements arranged in the following way:

                   All M are P.

                   All S are M.

              ∴ All S are P.

where P, S, and M are the major, minor, and middle terms of the syllogism. 

Aristotle showed that this type of syllogism is valid. If it is true that every S is included in M and every M is included in P, it also must be true that every S is included in P. 

This is the case regardless of what classes are designated by ‘S ’, ‘P’, and ‘M’. 

One of Aristotle’s great achievements was to insist that the validity of an argument is determined solely by the relationship between premisses and conclusion.

That is what he discovered, the way how our brain works to interact efficiently with its environment. Really amazing.

Thank you… ^_^

The Discussion

[13:19] Merlin Saxondale: Oh that seemed quick

[13:19] Roger Amdahl: mmm

[13:19] Roger Amdahl: quick but deep

[13:19] herman Bergson: Yes indeed Merlin, but yet as much text as always.....

[13:19] Dawn Rhiannyr: thank you Herman

[13:19] Rajamapuradjoloun Shichiroji: indeed deep!

[13:19] Rajamapuradjoloun Shichiroji: thanks herman!

[13:19] Bejiita Imako: hmm

[13:20] Bejiita Imako: interesting

[13:20] herman Bergson: the most fascinating here is the essence of deductive reasoning....

[13:20] Roger Amdahl: Does this mean that : although every tree is different from another tree ( no exact copy) we all recognise it as tree?

[13:20] Lizzy PleidesLizzy Pleides is still thinking

[13:20] Rajamapuradjoloun Shichiroji: I have to admit that this evening I had some difficulties to follow all the reasoning

[13:20] herman Bergson: Yes Roger...

[13:21] Rajamapuradjoloun Shichiroji: And I will have to study some of the things you explained

[13:21] Roger Amdahl: that is the reason .. we can see a tree in a shape of clouds ?

[13:21] herman Bergson: The most important thing here to understand is that Aristotle showed that valid resoning depends on the relations between terms, not on the content of the reasoning...

[13:22] Rajamapuradjoloun Shichiroji: I see....

[13:22] herman Bergson: No Roger...:-)

[13:22] herman Bergson: then Aristotle would say...

[13:22] herman Bergson: All trees stand on the ground

[13:23] Dawn Rhiannyr: ah ok

[13:23] herman Bergson: I see a tree in the sky

[13:23] herman Bergson: This is not a tree

[13:23] herman Bergson: The thing in the sky is not included in the class of trees...being an object on the ground

[13:23] Roger Amdahl: mm... I will search for the limit... what about a mangrove tree, that stands in water in rain season ... ( poor Aristotles)

[13:24] herman Bergson: Its roots are stil in the ground...:-)

[13:24] herman Bergson: Be they underwater tho

[13:25] Lizzy Pleides: you are our Aristotle herman

[13:25] herman Bergson: But the point is....Aristotle structured thinking.....

[13:25] Bejiita Imako: ㋡

[13:25] Bejiita Imako: YAY! (yay!)

[13:25] bergfrau Apfelbaum: :o)

[13:25] herman Bergson: And this way of thinking an reasoning lasted till the 19 century unchanged....

[13:26] herman Bergson: It showed us the method of logic

[13:26] herman Bergson: And this became the method of scientific inquiry

[13:27] herman Bergson: The weak point here is that Aristotle believed that the A type premise was the best one....

[13:27] herman Bergson: All S are P....

[13:27] Roger Amdahl: Yes , he did .... but it is basic for survival to make those mind jumps... a tiger with different striping is still a tiger... and this is the reason why we are very many fooled bye the interpretation of our vision ..

[13:27] herman Bergson: But we never can find or see all S.....past ..present and future ones

[13:29] Merlin Saxondale: Well thanks Herman....

[13:29] Dawn Rhiannyr: so better ask No S is P?

[13:29] Bejiita Imako: ah

[13:29] Rajamapuradjoloun Shichiroji: I am missing the point of what exactly "S", "P" and "A" are... :-(

[13:29] Lizzy Pleides: we can only see a little part of the entirely, so we need rules

[13:29] Merlin Saxondale: I must leave early ... something else is just starting now

[13:29] herman Bergson: Aristotle also introduced in this way a specific belief in scientific inquiry...

[13:29] Roger Amdahl: mm.. Question .... If Bergfrau's goat had tiger striping , what would a caveman see, and odd goat, or an odd tiger , or is this dependent on the personal "status" of the observer

[13:29] Roger Amdahl: ?

[13:29] herman Bergson: ok....S means 'subject' and P means 'predicate'

[13:29] Merlin Saxondale: Bye everyone

[13:30] Roger Amdahl: Bye Merlin

[13:30] Bejiita Imako: bye Merlin

[13:30] Dawn Rhiannyr: bye Merlin

[13:30] Rajamapuradjoloun Shichiroji: bye Merlin

[13:30] herman Bergson: or S = object and P = property

[13:30] Lizzy Pleides: TC merlin

[13:30] Rajamapuradjoloun Shichiroji: Oh, snap! Ok, got them!

[13:30] Rajamapuradjoloun Shichiroji: thanks!

[13:30] herman Bergson: so every object has  a property or a set of properties

[13:30] Roger Amdahl: (( or do I go off topic here ?))

[13:31] herman Bergson: The thing is , Roger, that Aristotle divided the world in classes of objects...

[13:32] herman Bergson: matter made them individual objects and properties made them into tigers, goat or trees...

[13:32] herman Bergson: And in a way that is how our mind works

[13:33] herman Bergson: So when you give the goat stripes he still has horns which a tiger doesn’t have...

[13:33] Bejiita Imako: and also its shape is different from a tiger

[13:33] herman Bergson: How many properties should the goat have to be actually a tiger ?:-)

[13:34] Bejiita Imako: try to eat you maybe

[13:34] Dawn Rhiannyr: good question

[13:34] herman Bergson: That is what I mean Bejiita...indeed

[13:34] Rajamapuradjoloun Shichiroji: all the properties of a tiger I guess

[13:34] Bejiita Imako: a goat dont try to eat you, a tiger sees you as food

[13:34] herman Bergson: yes Rajam, and then it is no longer a goat....

[13:34] Roger Amdahl: true ... how much do we need to make a conclusion ... run like hell, or prepare the BBQ ?

[13:35] herman Bergson: Main point here is that you see how such an old Greek already analyzed our methods of thinking and reasoning.....

[13:35] herman Bergson: and thus shaped scientific method

[13:36] herman Bergson: and for centuries..

[13:36] Roger Amdahl: Yes... He really was a genius, no doubt

[13:36] Dawn Rhiannyr: yes that's indeed amazing

[13:36] herman Bergson: Yes Dawn.....amazing indeed....

[13:37] Bejiita Imako: grmbllll computer &#¤&/&¤&#(#

[13:37] Bejiita Imako: !

[13:37] herman Bergson: If you consider the world he lived in compared to our information culture

[13:37] herman Bergson: Take a deep breath Bejiita :-))

[13:37] Lizzy Pleides: he obviously was more progressive than many of our contemporaries

[13:38] Roger Amdahl: We became lazy thinkers .. we prefer to google, and think ourselves.

[13:38] herman Bergson: I should be careful with that statement Lizzy.....

[13:38] herman Bergson: He is also the main cause for the secundery position in society of women...

[13:38] Rajamapuradjoloun Shichiroji: that's what amazes me! Some minds are way more ahead of their time but even of our time! What's happening to us? Are we just getting lazy or what?

[13:38] Lizzy Pleides: oh!

[13:38] herman Bergson: To him a woman was closer to an animal than to a real human being

[13:39] Roger Amdahl: *shuts up, because sitting between 2 women :)

[13:39] Dawn Rhiannyr: you better do Roger ;)

[13:39] herman Bergson: good strategy Roger :-)

[13:39] Bejiita Imako: hehe

[13:39] Lizzy PleidesLizzy Pleides pokes Roger

[13:39] Rajamapuradjoloun Shichiroji coughs....

[13:40] herman Bergson whispers: oops...I guess I better dismiss class before things run out of hand...:-))

[13:40] Dawn Rhiannyr: you want to say something Raja? :))

[13:40] Bejiita Imako: lol

[13:40] Rajamapuradjoloun Shichiroji: Yes, it's sooooooo late!

[13:40] bergfrau Apfelbaum: :-))

[13:40] Rajamapuradjoloun Shichiroji: I badly need to go home....

[13:40] Rajamapuradjoloun Shichiroji: Hehehehe....

[13:40] herman Bergson: Thank you al again for your participation....:-)

[13:40] Dawn Rhiannyr: thank you Herman... gives much to think about again

[13:40] Roger Amdahl: What he gave for reason for his thought about woman ?

[13:40] Bejiita Imako: nice again

[13:40] herman Bergson: Class dismissed :-))

[13:41] Bejiita Imako: cu soon again all

[13:41] Bejiita Imako: bye 

[13:41] bergfrau Apfelbaum: ty herman and class :o))

[13:41] Bejiita Imako: ㋡

[13:41] bergfrau Apfelbaum: byebye Bejiitaa

[13:41] Rajamapuradjoloun Shichiroji: Thanks herman, really another brilliant lecture this evening!

[13:41] herman Bergson: thank you Rajam :-)

[13:41] Bejiita Imako: YAY! (yay!)

545: Inductive reasoning....

In the previous lecture we talked about Aristotle’s ideas about scientific inquiry: the inductive - deductive procedure, as is shown in the diagram here next to me.

From observations to principles and from principles to observations. We are so used to this procedure that it might look too obvious.

From a cognitive point of view, I would say, that you see a kind of inductive reasoning in many organisms. 

It is the ability to learn from past experiences and then come to the conclusion: RUN !!! , for instance. But that is about it. 

An animal will never think about its conclusions and reason: why always running? Maybe I just should move to a saver area.

Homo sapiens does, however. Aristotle did and his conclusions had a great impact on how we think, or maybe thought, about science.

It is easy to say, that we start with observations, but that implies that we first have to answer the question; WHAT IS there to observe?

According to Aristotle, every particular thing is a union of MATTER and FORM. Matter is what makes the particular a unique individual, 

and form is what makes the particular a member of a class of similar things. To specify the form of a particular is to specify the properties it shares with other particulars.

Matter makes something to a unique tree, but specifying the properties it has, leaves of a certain shape, specific fruits, tells us that is has the form of an apple tree.

Aristotle maintained that it is by induction that generalizations about forms are drawn from sense experience. 

He discussed two types of induction. The two types share the characteristic of proceeding from particular statements to general statements.

The first type of induction is simple enumeration, in which statements about individual objects or events are taken as the basis for a generalization about a species of which these objects are members. 

Or, at a higher level, statements about individual species are taken as a basis for a generalization about a genus.

For instance, we observe small hairy animals of different colors, which purr, meow, are tame and Aristotle concludes that they belong to the species: domesticated cat.

The cats have properties in common with tigers, lions, pumas and the like which thence seem to be family of cats. In other words, there is a genus of felines.

With these concepts of matter and form Aristotle in fact organized our scientific way of looking at nature, like he also taught how to bring order in the multitude of observations.

In an inductive argument by simple enumeration, the premisses and conclusion contain the same descriptive terms. A typical argument by simple enumeration has the form:

a1 has property P

a2 has property P

a3 has property P

____________________

∴ All a’s have property P.

The second type of induction is a direct intuition of those general principles, which you recognize in a particular object or event.

This is meant: you are in the jungle and see an unknown plant. Never seen before, but you are a gifted botanist. You almost directly “see” to what species and genus this till now unknown plant belongs.

It is probable that when Aristotle wrote about intuitive induction, this is a sort of “vision” he had in mind. 

Aristotle himself was a highly successful taxonomist who undertook to classify some 540 biological species.

The taxonomist is a scientist who has learned to “see” the generic attributes and differences of a sample. 

There is a sense in which the taxonomist “sees more than” the untrained observer of the same sample.

This all looks like a very promising approach of scientific inquiry. Aristotle’s message was: use your senses, look at nature and observe, 

or as we would say it today: gather as many data as possible about the subject and find the explanatory principles.

The Discussion

[13:20] herman Bergson: Thank you... ^_^

[13:20] Gemma Cleanslate: that was not so bad

[13:20] ZANICIA Chau: Thank you Herman

[13:20] herman Bergson: Glad you say so, Gemma :-)

[13:20] Bejiita Imako: ah

[13:20] Ciska Riverstone: thank you herman

[13:20] Nymf Hathaway: Thank you Herman ㋡

[13:21] Dawn Rhiannyr: Thank you Herman :)

[13:21] Bejiita Imako: indeed basically this is how science work today i guess

[13:21] Bejiita Imako: through this principle and then to classify things based on properties

[13:21] herman Bergson: Yes Bejiita that is what we are inclinded to believe.

[13:22] herman Bergson: In the coming lectures you'll see that  there are other views these days

[13:22] Bejiita Imako: a CERN example would be the group Hadrons, hadrons are all articles made of quarks and quarks in turn belong to their own group and so on

[13:22] Dawn Rhiannyr: sorry I have to leave :( thank you Herman

[13:22] Bejiita Imako: based on properties and how they look

[13:22] Gemma Cleanslate: and science saved your life

[13:22] herman Bergson: ok Dawn...

[13:22] Nymf Hathaway: Waves at Dawn

[13:22] Bejiita Imako: bye dawn

[13:22] Gemma Cleanslate: Bye, Bye  ㋡ 

[13:22] Gemma Cleanslate: dawn

[13:22] herman Bergson: We will get to CERN too Bejiita :-))

[13:23] Bejiita Imako: same that example with plants

[13:23] Bejiita Imako: ㋡

[13:23] herman Bergson: Not yet now, but in coming lectures

[13:23] Bejiita Imako: everything can be put into a group

[13:23] Bejiita Imako: the thing is to define this group properly

[13:23] herman Bergson: But there is a flaw in Aristotle's approach....didn't you notice? :-))

[13:23] Gemma Cleanslate: well

[13:23] Bejiita Imako: hmm ok

[13:24] ZANICIA Chau: ?

[13:24] herman Bergson: Even in common sense talks you point at it now and then

[13:24] Gemma Cleanslate: back at the x1 and x2

[13:24] Gemma Cleanslate: etc

[13:24] herman Bergson: Go on Gemma :-)

[13:24] Gemma Cleanslate: seems 3 examples are not enough

[13:24] Merlin Saxondale: Oh I wondered about that

[13:24] Gemma Cleanslate: too much generalization

[13:24] Gemma Cleanslate: so far

[13:24] Merlin Saxondale: I did not like to be picky and I thought it was just an example

[13:24] Bejiita Imako: aaa yes that is true

[13:25] herman Bergson: Ok Gemma...how many examples would be enough

[13:25] Bejiita Imako: as we say in Sweden, draw all over one comb

[13:25] Gemma Cleanslate: unless he corrected it else where

[13:25] Gemma Cleanslate: depends

[13:25] herman Bergson: Exactly Bejiita

[13:25] Bejiita Imako: just because 3 are green doesn’t mean all are green

[13:25] Merlin Saxondale: There is no number which is sufficient

[13:25] Gemma Cleanslate: it is the information about x1 and x2

[13:25] herman Bergson: Indeed Merlin.....He uses the quantifier ALL in his conclusion

[13:26] Gemma Cleanslate: etc

[13:26] herman Bergson: and that is questionable....

[13:26] Bejiita Imako: ah

[13:26] Gemma Cleanslate: was that the part you mean we should question

[13:26] herman Bergson: We'll get back to this issue more often in the future...

[13:27] herman Bergson: Yes Gemma, because  by finding new samples of some thing you yet never reach all samples...

[13:27] ZANICIA Chau: Darwin would have questioned, as he believed in challenging 'absolutes'.

[13:28] Ciska Riverstone: the plant for example could match in 20 points the group the specialist knows but not in 2 which are not viewable on first sight and give an other origin by a closer look 

[13:28] herman Bergson: Induction never leads to absolute "All....A are B " conclusions

[13:28] Merlin Saxondale: Cantor would certainly not have liked it!

[13:28] herman Bergson: Yes Ciska, that is why some taxonomies are revised now and then

[13:29] Bejiita Imako: we wil always discover new things so generalization can be a really bad thing to put in

[13:29] Gemma Cleanslate: of course we have to remind ourselves of the state of science in those days too

[13:29] herman Bergson: We make mistakes....

[13:29] Bejiita Imako: yes

[13:29] Nymf Hathaway: Thank you Herman, I am sorry but I need to leave too :( Thank you again ㋡

[13:29] Bejiita Imako: bye chantal

[13:29] ZANICIA Chau: Me too. Sorry

[13:29] herman Bergson: Induction bring us to "It is probable to a certain extend that all....."

[13:29] Nymf Hathaway: Bye bye enjoy everyone!

[13:29] Nymf Hathaway: everyone too

[13:29] Ciska Riverstone: take care chantal

[13:29] Bejiita Imako: ㋡

[13:30] MikkiLouise: the important thing surely is to recognize the imperfection of a classification and not be afraid to revise when new data is presented. This defines proper science.

[13:30] herman Bergson: My goodness....this lecture is wearing down people, it seems :-))

[13:30] Bejiita Imako: a good example is definition of salts

[13:30] herman Bergson: Indeed Mikki

[13:31] Bejiita Imako: at first we thought it had something to do with oxygen byt after many redefinitions we finally arrived at the ionic compound theory

[13:31] Bejiita Imako: that proved true

[13:31] Ciska Riverstone: which might not be the last station either Bejiita ;)

[13:31] herman Bergson: This is another point...this matter - form idea of Aristotle...

[13:32] Bejiita Imako: well we now know for ex that common salt is sodium and chloride ions and they are produced from a neutralization reaction

[13:32] herman Bergson: I didnt know that :-)

[13:33] Bejiita Imako: mix caustic soda (sodium hydroxide) and hydrochloric acid and u end up with salt water

[13:33] Bejiita Imako: common chemistry class experiment

[13:34] herman Bergson: Well, I guess that you all understood that INDUCTION is an important way of reasoning in science, but that it also entails a number of serious questions

[13:34] herman Bergson: We'll deal with those often in future lectures...

[13:35] Bejiita Imako: this can be good ㋡

[13:35] herman Bergson: So, let's keep it to that for today unless you still have a question....

[13:35] herman Bergson: ok...then...thank you all again for your participation...

[13:35] Bejiita Imako: ㋡

[13:35] herman Bergson: Class dismissed... ^_^

[13:35] Bejiita Imako: great class again

[13:36] Bejiita Imako: ㋡

[13:36] herman Bergson: thank you Bejiita

[13:36] Ciska Riverstone: thank you herman thanx folks

[13:36] Beertje Beaumont: yes very interesting:)

[13:36] Beertje Beaumont: thank you Herman

[13:36] Bejiita Imako: cu soon again

[13:36] herman Bergson: You will Bejiita :-))

[13:36] Bejiita Imako: ㋡

544: First steps in the philosophy of science

As we observed before, in several cultures homo sapiens began to think about thinking, which led to the discovery of certain properties of thinking.

One of the fundamental properties of thinking is that we require of our thoughts that they be logical.

The basic principles of logic center on the law of contradiction, which states that a statement cannot be both true and false, 

and the law of the excluded middle, which stresses that a statement must be either true or false.

This is not our invention. In india they thought of this much earlier already.  Then there was China and the Arabic world.

But even though the science of logic was derived from mathematics, logic eventually came to be considered as a study independent of mathematics yet applicable to all reasoning.

And just at one moment in history in the educated world, as far as we know, there was only one person who took this step: Aristotle(384 - 322 BC)

I don’t think he was the only one in his time, but he left us his  “Posterior Analytics”, his principal work on the philosophy of science,

in addition, the “Physics” and the “Metaphysics”, which contain discussions of certain aspects of scientific method.

Aristotle was the first philosopher of science. He created the discipline by analyzing certain problems that arise in connection with scientific explanation.

He viewed scientific inquiry as a progression from observations to general principles and back to observations. 

He maintained that the scientist should induce explanatory principles from the phenomena to be explained, 

and then deduce statements about the phenomena from premisses which include these principles.

Here are coined the basic principles of scientific method, according to Aristotle’s ideas: INDUCTION and DEDUCTION.

Aristotle believed that scientific inquiry begins with knowledge that certain events occur, or that certain properties coexist. 

Scientific explanation is achieved only when statements about these events or properties are deduced from explanatory principles. 

Scientific explanation thus is a transition from knowledge of a fact - point 1 in the diagram behind me - to knowledge of the reasons for the fact - point 3.

According to Aristotle, every particular thing is a union of matter and form, or as we would say it, an object is as it is by the configuration of its atoms.

Matter is what makes the particular a unique individual, and form is what makes the particular a member of a class of similar things. 

To specify the form of a particular is to specify the properties it shares with other particulars.

And thus Aristotle formulated the basic principles of our scientific thinking. We live in a word of individual objects,

which share properties with other individual objects, thus creating a set or class.

This line of thinking has shaped our world. And although it all may look so obvious, it isn’t, for then all cultures would have developed science in the same way.

To be continued…

Thank you… ^_^

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)

Gilbert Ryle, ‘Systematically Misleading Expressions’, in A. Flew, ed., Essays on Logic and Language—First Series (Oxford: Blackwell, 1951), 11–13.

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

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

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

The Discussion

[13:20] herman Bergson: If you have any question or remark...plz feel free...the floor is yours :-)

[13:20] Dawn Rhiannyr: Thank you Herman :)

[13:20] Bejiita Imako: YAY! (yay!)

[13:20] Gemma Cleanslate: good old Aristotle

[13:20] Bejiita Imako: interesting

[13:20] Merlin Saxondale: quite tough today imho

[13:20] herman Bergson: But I must admit....this time it all isn’t that controverisal :-)

[13:21] Gemma Cleanslate GIGGLES!!

[13:21] Gemma Cleanslate: ...LOL...

[13:21] Gemma Cleanslate: right back to the very beginning

[13:21] herman Bergson: Yes Gemma...amazing to see how one individual had such a huge influence on the cultural development of whole Europe and more

[13:22] Merlin Saxondale: A lot of people say Aristotle started it all

[13:22] Beertje Beaumont: most of the time the ideas start with one individual

[13:22] Bejiita Imako: true

[13:22] herman Bergson: In a way he did Merlin....

[13:22] Bejiita Imako: in many cases at least

[13:22] Merlin Saxondale: Even though I still get mixed up with Archimedes :P

[13:23] herman Bergson: But there is one interesting historical issue here...

[13:23] herman Bergson: We link a lot of special developments and events to ONE person.....

[13:24] herman Bergson: But from a philosophy of science point of view this is already questionable....

[13:24] herman Bergson: I mean....

[13:24] herman Bergson: In Greece in Aristotle's time were dozens of teachers like him

[13:24] herman Bergson: So his ideas didn’t come out of the blue sky....

[13:25] Gemma Cleanslate: all passing ideas around

[13:25] herman Bergson: Yes...

[13:25] Gemma Cleanslate: at their forums

[13:25] herman Bergson: Like the ideas of Einstein weren't unique either...

[13:25] herman Bergson: others had the same ideas...like for instance Lorenz...

[13:26] Merlin Saxondale: Its probably true of a lot of people... Newton... Darwin

[13:26] herman Bergson: But it is just the guy who steps forward first who is remembered

[13:26] Gemma Cleanslate: yes

[13:26] herman Bergson: Oh yes Merlin.....

[13:26] Merlin Saxondale smiles

[13:26] Gemma Cleanslate: well that is how it is the scientists like to share and build on each others ideas

[13:26] herman Bergson: So , history is not a history of individuals...

[13:26] Gemma Cleanslate: except

[13:26] Gemma Cleanslate: now in many areas they are prohibited

[13:27] Gemma Cleanslate: fro m sharing

[13:27] herman Bergson: oh yes patents all over the place :-)

[13:27] Gemma Cleanslate: yes and also some governments forbid it

[13:27] herman Bergson: patents are a huge blockade of scientific development

[13:27] Gemma Cleanslate: true

[13:28] herman Bergson: But there is no patent on Induction and deduction :-))

[13:28] Gemma Cleanslate: good thing

[13:28] Bejiita Imako: i guess so

[13:28] herman Bergson: I'll get into that in a next lecture :-))

[13:28] Bejiita Imako: indeed esp the us patent system is nuts

[13:29] Bejiita Imako: Apple is a good example of that, basically using it to become the one and only smartphone manufacturer in the world

[13:29] Bejiita Imako: not fair play at all

[13:29] Gemma Cleanslate: : [Posted 1:22 PM PDT, 7 October 2014] We are performing unscheduled maintenance at this time. During this time, some residents may experience login issues, and Residents in-world may also be logged off or experience degraded performance. Please refrain from rezzing no-copy objects and making L$ transactions during this maintenance. On the website, please also avoid using any financial services until the all clear is given. Please check back here for updates.

[13:29] Gemma Cleanslate: just got that

[13:29] herman Bergson: uh oh....

[13:29] Gemma Cleanslate: no wonder nothing is working right

[13:29] Bejiita Imako: aah

[13:29] Bejiita Imako: maybe thunderstorms there too

[13:30] Bejiita Imako: they have problems at the accelerators at cern now due to storms

[13:30] Gemma Cleanslate: oh?

[13:30] Gemma Cleanslate: thought it was still closed

[13:30] Bejiita Imako: and here it rains like hell

[13:30] herman Bergson: Here too......:-)

[13:30] Bejiita Imako: the LHC is off but all other machines have started up

[13:31] Gemma Cleanslate: ah ok

[13:31] herman Bergson: I guess we are done for today with Aristotle's first steps in philosophy of science?

[13:31] Gemma Cleanslate: there is science sharing going on there with all the countries involved

[13:31] herman Bergson: Unless one of you still has a burning question or remark?

[13:31] Gemma Cleanslate: shall wait til the answer of that issue

[13:31] Gemma Cleanslate GIGGLES!!

[13:31] Gemma Cleanslate: ...LOL...

[13:32] Bejiita Imako: ㋡

[13:32] Beertje Beaumont: how could people get notice of the ideas of Aristoteles ?

[13:32] Beertje Beaumont: they couldn't read his books, could they?

[13:32] herman Bergson: Well...next time I'll dig in deeper in Aristotle's ideas ....

[[13:32] Beertje Beaumont: lol..I couldn't type any faster...

[13:32] Gemma Cleanslate: I think there was a lot of oral passing of his works

[13:33] herman Bergson: They could read Beertje...

[13:33] Gemma Cleanslate: at that time was common to talk and tell lots of stories

[13:33] herman Bergson: The "books" of Aristotle for instance are not really written by himself....

[13:33] Beertje Beaumont: o?

[13:33] Gemma Cleanslate: like all the other things

[13:33] Gemma Cleanslate: ♥ LOL ♥

[13:33] herman Bergson: They seem to be mainly notes from his lectures collected by his students

[13:34] herman Bergson: The amazing thing is that they were written down!!!....and copied...and copied..and that such copies survived all these centuries

[13:34] Merlin Saxondale: Well Thanks Herman and bye everyone

[13:34] Gemma Cleanslate: like the bible i say

[13:35] Bejiita Imako: interesting

[13:35] Gemma Cleanslate: Bye, Bye  ㋡ 

[13:35] Gemma Cleanslate: merlin

[13:35] herman Bergson: Ok Merlin :-)

[13:35] Bejiita Imako: bye merln

[13:35] Dawn Rhiannyr: bye Merlin

[13:35] Gemma Cleanslate: hope i will be here Thursday

[13:35] Gemma Cleanslate: will try

[13:35] herman Bergson: Yes Gemma and a lot of other books.....

[13:35] Bejiita Imako: ah

[13:35] Beertje Beaumont: but a copy can be rewritten by another person with a lot of fantasy

[13:35] Beertje Beaumont: fantasy

[13:35] Gemma Cleanslate: right

[13:35] Bejiita Imako: i guess so¨

[13:35] Dawn Rhiannyr: yes Beertje

[13:35] herman Bergson: Oh yes Beertje....

[13:36] Beertje Beaumont: like the bible...

[13:36] Gemma Cleanslate: like the bible yes

[13:36] Bejiita Imako: or quoran

[13:36] Gemma Cleanslate: lots of books left out

[13:36] herman Bergson: That is why these manuscripts are subject to thorough analysis....

[13:36] herman Bergson: It is a science....

[13:36] Bejiita Imako: sh

[13:36] Bejiita Imako: ah

[13:36] herman Bergson: Sometimes they even recognize the person who made copies

[13:36] Beertje Beaumont: ㋡

[13:37] herman Bergson: By handwriting or systematic errors, spelling mistakes and so on

[13:37] Dawn Rhiannyr: amazing that

[13:37] Gemma Cleanslate: interesting

[13:37] herman Bergson: Yes...is a complete science

[13:37] Bejiita Imako: ㋡

[13:37] Gemma Cleanslate: looks forward to thursday

[13:37] Bejiita Imako: ah

[13:37] Bejiita Imako: yes

[13:37] Bejiita Imako: cu then

[13:37] Gemma Cleanslate: Bye, Bye  ㋡ 

[13:37] Gemma Cleanslate: for now :-)

[13:37] Bejiita Imako: ㋡

[13:37] herman Bergson: Ok Gemma...take care !

[13:38] Gemma Cleanslate: ♥ Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! ♥

[13:38] Dawn Rhiannyr: bye Gemma

[13:38] Bejiita Imako: bye

[13:38] Beertje Beaumont: bye Gemma

[13:38] Bejiita Imako: cu thursday then

[13:38] herman Bergson: Ok Bejiita :-))

[13:38] Bejiita Imako: ㋡

[13:38] herman Bergson: be well and enjoy

[13:39] Beertje Beaumont: well I have to go too, tomorrow will be a very busy day for me

[13:39] herman Bergson: YEs indeed :-))

[13:39] Beertje Beaumont: grins...

[13:39] Dawn Rhiannyr: Thank you again Herman... will have lots to think again

[13:40] herman Bergson: Keeps you healthy Dawn...

[13:40] Beertje Beaumont: thank you for the lecture Herman

[13:40] herman Bergson: My pleasure Beertje

[13:40] Beertje Beaumont: have a goodnight

[13:40] Dawn Rhiannyr: yes that's what I always say - thinking and laughing ;)

[13:40] herman Bergson: it is true....

[13:41] herman Bergson: best way to keep your brain in shape is intellectual activity and physical exersice..

[13:41] Dawn Rhiannyr: yes very true so

[13:41] Dawn Rhiannyr: and a positive way of living