logical bob wrote:

jamest wrote:You have no idea what 'order' means?

... Okay, then order is a reference to the relations we observe between distinct events. If those relations are consistent, then we have order. For instance, if A + B always entails C, then we can claim that there is an ordered relationship between A & B.

Our distinct sensations/qualia are ordered sufficient for us to all think/say that all 5+ [distinct groups of info](particular groupings thereof) =/entail C... if you get my drift.


This is the very simple stuff. If you don't know what 'order' means then you should probably join the popcorn brigade, on the back row, squire.

If you're going to talk about science you're going to have to achieve a better level of clarity of thought and expression.

I was neither talking science nor trying to be a scientist. So if you want better clarity then stop imposing your particular expectations upon me, especially within the philosophy forum. In other words, take your blinkers off and stop demanding that everything I say ticks your scientific demands. Or else, give me metaphysical reasons why I should abide by your 'rules'.

There was nothing unclear about what I said, so I feel no particular need to bend over backwards in an attempt to throw out the disingenuous spanner which you have deliberately thrown into the machine. This is the philosophy forum, where I expect you to engage in discourse without bigoted ideas dictating the course the discourse should take.

Thommo wrote:Hmm, not sure how helpful that could be. The axiom of regularity is an axiom of ZFC, in which (the axiom of) choice is trivially true. So if the R refers to that axiom and "choice" in that post refers to the axiom of choice, then it would simply be a false statement. Which seems improbable.

Well, it was on a forum. I just assume that anything on a discussion forum is wrong. I think this whole thing just shows yet again why ethics is better than mathematics.

There's only one thing for it. Ughaibu, what does ZFR stand for?

jamest wrote:
I was neither talking science nor trying to be a scientist.

Re: Why does science work?

How does one participate in a discussion about why science works without talking about science?

Thommo wrote:Hmm, not sure how helpful that could be. The axiom of regularity is an axiom of ZFC, in which (the axiom of) choice is trivially true. So if the R refers to that axiom and "choice" in that post refers to the axiom of choice, then it would simply be a false statement. Which seems improbable.

I found a paper that uses ZFR to refer to a specific function that randomly generates x using a binary power set and then establishes that the axiom choice is negated in that space, and as a result ughaibu is saying that if physics has a notion of randomness then it can't have the notion of countable choice under the ZF scheme.

I'm pretty much a layman with this stuff, so I'm probably off the mark by a wide margin in my understanding of the paper, but here it is (pdf): INDEPENDENCE STRUCTURES IN SET THEORY

Spinozasgalt wrote:

Thommo wrote:Hmm, not sure how helpful that could be. The axiom of regularity is an axiom of ZFC, in which (the axiom of) choice is trivially true. So if the R refers to that axiom and "choice" in that post refers to the axiom of choice, then it would simply be a false statement. Which seems improbable.

Well, it was on a forum. I just assume that anything on a discussion forum is wrong. I think this whole thing just shows yet again why ethics is better than mathematics.

Do you have a link, I'd like to try and suss out what these forumites were talking about if possible please.

Thanks Boyle.

Here's the link that I found. Anyone who uses that many symbols has to be involved in the occult.

jamest wrote:

logical bob wrote:If you're going to talk about science you're going to have to achieve a better level of clarity of thought and expression.

I was neither talking science nor trying to be a scientist. So if you want better clarity then stop imposing your particular expectations upon me, especially within the philosophy forum. In other words, take your blinkers off and stop demanding that everything I say ticks your scientific demands. Or else, give me metaphysical reasons why I should abide by your 'rules'.

There was nothing unclear about what I said, so I feel no particular need to bend over backwards in an attempt to throw out the disingenuous spanner which you have deliberately thrown into the machine. This is the philosophy forum, where I expect you to engage in discourse without bigoted ideas dictating the course the discourse should take.

At least you're openly admitting that your philosophical discussions need to be exempt from any requirement of clarity of thought and expression. But if you regard expecting you to make sense as bigotry you'll find that only certain people want to take part. We'll agree to disagree on whether that's a good thing.

Boyle wrote:

Thommo wrote:Hmm, not sure how helpful that could be. The axiom of regularity is an axiom of ZFC, in which (the axiom of) choice is trivially true. So if the R refers to that axiom and "choice" in that post refers to the axiom of choice, then it would simply be a false statement. Which seems improbable.

I found a paper that uses ZFR to refer to a specific function that randomly generates x using a binary power set and then establishes that the axiom choice is negated in that space, and as a result ughaibu is saying that if physics has a notion of randomness then it can't have the notion of countable choice under the ZF scheme.

I'm pretty much a layman with this stuff, so I'm probably off the mark by a wide margin in my understanding of the paper, but here it is (pdf): INDEPENDENCE STRUCTURES IN SET THEORY

He starts his section numbering at 0. That's pretty cool. Might also be a sign of immaturity. The paper looks like it was written in Word.

UndercoverElephant wrote:Why does science work?

Because there is consistency between subjective observations of the physical environment, and science describes this consistency in an organised way using evidence to formulate and test its models.

Furthermore, it has less resistance to changing its models than most organised systems.

ScholasticSpastic wrote:

jamest wrote:
I was neither talking science nor trying to be a scientist.

Re: Why does science work?

How does one participate in a discussion about why science works without talking about science?

There's a difference between talking about science (the subject) and talking science (the subject matter). The former is a philosophical endeavour.

Well, often it is the other way around. Engineers wanted to improve the steam engine, so they studied it in a very "applied science" type mode, but serendipously this led to the Laws Of Thermodynamics, which is arguably "Pure Science". And folks knew the "tech" to make wine and cheese without either the applied or pure science, which came later.
We often know the "howto" before the "how it works". What the "how it works" does it help us understand when the wine goes sour, or the cheese rancid, because either wrong bugs or mutation.

Which is why I think this thread should be re-titled "How does science work?"

jamest wrote:

ScholasticSpastic wrote:

jamest wrote:
I was neither talking science nor trying to be a scientist.

Re: Why does science work?

How does one participate in a discussion about why science works without talking about science?

There's a difference between talking about science (the subject) and talking science (the subject matter). The former is a philosophical endeavour.

There was nothing about my challenge to you to organise your ideas that was specifically scientific. I know you haven't studied philosophy in a university environment, so I can only ask you to take it from me that if you'd offered what you said about order to an academic philosopher as a philosophical endeavour it would have been criticised in very much those terms.

What we're talking about here isn't a methodology particular to a discipline you can choose to avoid. Clarity of thought and language is fundamental to all disciplines. Given that your personal project is about reaching conclusions by means of "nought but reason" you should be more, not less, invested in reasoning well than the rest of us.

The only way in which science is different is that scientific failure is obvious, so that if the reasoning is sloppy the bridge collapses, the vaccine doesn't work, the results from the particle accelerator don't match the predictions. The product of philosophy is writing, and the product of sloppy philosophy is writing that's not to the taste of discerning readers. The less public nature of the failure doesn't mean reasoning isn't equally required in both activities.

jamest wrote:There's a difference between talking about science (the subject) and talking science (the subject matter). The former is a philosophical endeavour.

1) bob is right: if you want to say there's a difference, it behooves you to give an account of that difference, if in no other terms than your usual bollocks about the map and the territory

2) you should attempt to delineate what a 'philosophical endeavour' requires; for instance, if talking about the weather differs from talking the weather, it's probably because the former consists of nothing but opinions

Get it?

We already know your opinions on the philosophical value of sense data, but not so clear on how you exclude sense data from your pronouncements on philosophy. The best you seem to manage is to talk about sense data, without actually managing to exclude them.

The difference between what we observe in sense data and the way things really are is just not significantly illuminated in any way by your 'philosophical endeavour'. If you didn't insist on deciding what constitutes par for the course, we could tell whether your score is above or below par. Sense data to the fore!

THWOTH wrote:Which is why I think this thread should be re-titled "How does science work?"

"Why" questions are almost always better-phrased as "what", "when" or "how" questions.

Why is that?

scott1328 wrote:Why is that?

"Why questions" cause the porpoises to come out to play. I have no intention to let them squeal about intention, design, etc.