Are Our Theories Correct? (Transient Underdetermination)

[@CuriosityGuy]

What is something that is rational?

[@jamesfreel8157]

math, algebra and logic only.

[@Elgeneralsimo69]

From math, we have the notion of a function which means that one input goes to only one output, f(1) = 1; but if one input goes to two outputs, then one is no longer dealing with a function but a relationship, or a logic gate, or some other more complicated constructs... something along the lines of r(1) = 1v2 or r(2) = 3&4. By the same token, a theory is defined as giving one prediction to one input; if I have more than one output I am no longer dealing with a function or, in other words, I must discard any such theory. Example: If I ask for your mass at an instant in the *future*, what will your answer be? (predictive) or I remember that when I asked for your mass at an instant in the *past*, you gave me this answer. (descriptive) That those answers have one and only one value at any one instant in time is logical and rational in accordance to all I know about mass/energy (specifically, conservation of energy). Thus, if my theory does in fact predict two values for your mass at one instant, then my predictive theory is wrong since you only have one value at one instant. Likewise, if I remember that at one instant you had two different values of mass, then my descriptive theory is wrong since again a person can only have one mass value at one instant past, present, or future..

[@PotterSuppositionalist]

Very interesting series Carneades.org But the points you made require an asterisk as they are highly questionable. For instance, science being irrational is fallacious because your definition of "rational" is based on a dubious system of logic which you reject. Non-classical logics are available to science and therefore it is a self defeating claim on your part.

[@CarneadesOfCyrene]

Potter Suppositionalist What non-classical logic do you think can result in science being rational?

[@PotterSuppositionalist]

Carneades.org We should avoid equivocation. So, are we using your definition or mine definition? Under mine, either logic system will do. But you define _rational_ according to classical logic and you reject classical logic because it is problematic. That is causing an issue. If you are interested in an alternative system of logic, which does not have the problems that classical logic has, I would suggest a paraconsistent logic. Some paraconsistent logics are also dialetheic, which is the view that there are true contradictions; the Lair Paradox for instance. Under this system, a contradiction doesn't explode logic. There are consequences, but they are contained and tolerated. See the SEP article on paraconsistent logic. My definition of _reason_ is the ability to reevaluate assumptions based on new evidence, and rationality is the act of being reasonable. So under my definition, science meets the criteria for reasonable and rational regardless of which logic system is used. Moreover, science works within relative truth (or provisional truth). There will be scientific paradigms and scientific revolutions, but results tend to be convergent, each misstep and correction furthers our understanding, despite the fact it's imperfect. Science is rational (provided it isn't dogmatic).

[@CarneadesOfCyrene]

Potter Suppositionalist Interesting position. Utilizing a different definition of rationality does not seem to address the problem of something being irrational. Even if you say that rationality means something different, the problem is that two people can correctly use the scientific method and come to different conclusions. That seems to be a big problem for what most people understand as science (and what science purports). The common conception is that scientific theories show one correct answer, when in fact the only reason that they show such an answer is because the scientist choose that answer, and another scientist could just as easily choose another answer. In fact there is nothing other than personal bias that makes one choose one answer over another. Making decisions solely based on personal bias sounds irrational to me. You can call it something else, but that does not defeat the power of the argument.

[@PotterSuppositionalist]

Carneades.org I'm surprised by that response, as I've already explained why your argument is invalid. In part, this is because you've shown how classical logic should be rejected, so defining _rational_ based on a principle of classical logic is an irrational mistake. *"...the problem is that two people can correctly use the scientific method and come to different conclusions."* A suspicion a scientist may have, which she might consider her conclusion, should be provisionally held, if held at all. Science is a method for correcting prior assumptions, not for gaining certain knowledge. When a theory makes a false prediction, the conclusion is that the prediction was wrong. That requires a reevaluation of prior assumptions, which is the definition of reasonable. That's how science is rational. *"Making decisions solely based on personal bias sounds irrational to me."* Interesting rhetoric, but science doesn't operate that way as I've explained. If there are scientists which resemble your hypothetical strawman-scientist, my position is that they should and could do better.

[@Mini_Pimopima]

The Positron and Higgs Boson where theories proven to be true?

[@johnmanno2052]

Alas! Poor Carneades! You're a VERY brave man! I've found that people are totally just fine hunky dory with my scepticism around religion (because we all know THAT'S "not true", right?). But GOD FORBID (metaphorically) that I should question SCIENCE! Science is "true" (and then they go through pretty much any or all of the iterations of "true" that the comments here are going through). My Marxist friends are the most strident on this point, though they adopt their Hegelian "dialectical materialism", where contradictions exist and are great because.... well "it's all a process of discovery" and "imperialist European logic/liberalism" etc etc. But what my non Marxist friends do is launch into hyper complicated "proofs" of how science is an adequate process to make accurate.... enough provisional models of "reality" without having absolutely any faith in any of that, yet knowing it all without knowing it simultaneously. Because science. And I get yelled at. A lot.

[@CarneadesOfCyrene]

People forget that skepticism about everything means everything. Usually people calm down when I say I am an instrumentalist about science (I use it, even if I don't' believe it). kzbin.info/www/bejne/o6DIkniDd52Gb7M

[@MrTweej]

I'll have to give it some more thought but I really don't think I'm a skeptic in the sense you've laid out here. Good series but I disagree with many of the points you've raised.

[@CarneadesOfCyrene]

MrTweej What do you disagree with?

[@MrTweej]

Carneades.org For starters I'm still trying take sense of the liar's paradox (I don't see how "this statement" would be a truth bearer.) The gettier problem seems like a good challenge to absolute certainty but I don't think knowledge requires certainty. I'm relatively new to philosophy though and there's a lot I'm still trying to understand.

[@CarneadesOfCyrene]

MrTweej So you don't think that "1) This statement is a statement" is true or false. What about "2) Statement 2 is a statement". Do you think that 2 is neither true nor false? If you think that it is true, then the liar paradox will reappear. If not, then what do you think of "3) Statement 2 is a statement" or "4) Statement 2 is neither true nor false". If you think that 3 is a statement, then you have a problem as 2 and 3 are identical yet one is a statement and one is not. If you think that 3 is not a statement because you can't reference Statement 2 at all then you have to deny that 4 is a statement as well because it references 2. But then you can't even make your original assertion that Statement 2 is not a truth bearer. But if you accept 4, you have to give some other reason that 3 is problematic other than that it references 2.

[@MrTweej]

Carneades.org With regards to 1) There are two ways I'm reading it: "This" is an adjective. "Statement" is a noun. An adjective and a noun on their own aren't a statement. In that sense I would say 1) is false. The other way I could interpret 1) is to say "This statement" means, or is short for "This statement is a statement". In that case, if I was to apply my use of the words "this statement" consistently, it seems like I would end up with something like "This statement is a statement is a statement is a statement is a statement etc., etc." Wouldn't I? On that interpretation I'd say 1) is neither true nor false. For the same reason I'd come up with more than one interpretation for 2) and 3). With both interpretations though, I think I'd be able to say 4) is true... I think. Hopefully that's clear enough. I'll mull it over some more.

[@gdn5001]

In order for a theory to be useful, doesn't it have to continue making correct predictions.

[@lreadlResurrected]

Is there a point to this?

[@CarneadesOfCyrene]

lreadlResurrected It's adding the idea of transient underdetermination (that there could be empirically unequivalend theories that equally explain the current data) to the ideas of comparative underdetermination with only empirically equivalent theories in the last video.

[@lreadlResurrected]

I'm not trying to be obtuse (or disrespectful), but please, what is the utility of this inspection? What is to be taken from it? Are you building up anything or taking down anything? If so, I have so far failed to comprehend it. That may be entirely my fault--I'm not complaining so much as I am confused and intrigued.

[@lreadlResurrected]

And skeptical, I should have added. :-)

[@FrozenSpector]

lreadlResurrected Underdetermination casts doubt on justification within a system commonly claimed to be a source for otherwise genuine, true belief (i.e. - knowledge). If the tools we use to craft a claim are faulty, we cannot construct a solid foundation for knowledge. The implications range from discussing potential problems within the current system to progression towards a "better" system in the future.

[@nsp74]

none...

[@hiwayM9]

So everything I think I know is correct, unless it isn't; all at once but never static and never final. That seems like a state of insanity.

[@CarneadesOfCyrene]

***** More like claiming that the things that you know are right, is just a temporal bias for right now, since everyone else has been wrong so far.

[@hiwayM9]

Carneades.org fascinating... but impossible to deny. My synapses sizzle

[@nsp74]

Kevin de LaPlante video on this topic is better

[@andreborges3252]

Bro isnt the only racional method the mathematic and logical one? isnt historic method irracional two? btw i agree with you on this but dont u think we need to mantain this irracional method just becouze it gives goods to our understanding and helps our progress? keep the slaves becouze they generate money -moraly wrong keep the method becozue it generates goods - methodologycally wrong but i mean... do you think we sohuld use it? becouze i do. (not implying that you dont) historical method is irracional 2 but we neeed it as we neeeed science thats my point.

[@tjejojyj]

"... we are sure we have it right this time." Which scholar or scientist ever actually said that? Or even said the scientific method was infallible? This is a straw man argument and an attempt to squeeze scientific inquiry into the straight-jacket of formal logic. I would have like to have seen these videos compare Newtonian mechanics with General Relativity or Aristotelian motion compared to Galileo's gravity. Are we really satisfied to say that the empirical difference between former and the later in these two cases is not significant? Instead we were given Newton vs Newton or Einstein vs Einstein. I say take the argument all the way: how about Creationism versus Darwinism? Let us see were this scepticism takes us. What's real going on? Scientific knowledge is developed through a social activity which draws us closer to the truth. This process is not "straight and true" but rather it zig-zags, pauses, leaps etc. etc. It is not "the Truth" in the sense the Godel's theorem is true; rather we are just peeling back Richard Feynman's infinite onion, one layer at a time. To say "we cannot know that our theories are correct" is true but point is whether we have more knowledge this year compared to last. If the rebuttal is sceptical instrumentalism, my question is how does it makes sense given everything you have said about the problems of empirical data under-determining theories. Isn't instrumentalism a theory? A meta-theory is surely still a theory. Anyone interested in physics knows it is replete with paradoxes and conundrums that defy the categories of formal logic and common sense. Take the law of the excluded middle: try applying that to the double slit experiment and see how far you get - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment#Interpretations_of_the_experiment - Can a photo be in two places at once and interfere with itself? Maybe we have to give up the notion of "the particle"? That is give up the idea of the world as a complex of things to be replaced by a world made up of processes? That is a world where "A is A" doesn't make much sense. This would requires us to consider the dialectics of Hegel and its development in the dialectical materialism of Marx. There's a video I would like to see you tackle. Your videos are challenging and interesting but I have to disagree. Thanks.

[@CarneadesOfCyrene]

Scientific realists claim that scientific theories are true. Here's the video on the subject kzbin.info/www/bejne/n2SnnZuEnMqkkM0. As for the empirical differences, we are saying, for example, that until we had new empirical data multiple theories explained the data present. And yes, this applies to Creationism vs Darwinism. Here's an explanation: kzbin.info/www/bejne/nJnOoXhojK5qprc Why do you think that we are getting closer to the truth? If we know more than we used to, what are the things that we know? If ever the Uniformity of Nature decided to stop working, we would realize that everything, all of our scientific theories would be wrong. Here's the video on the Problem of Induction: kzbin.info/www/bejne/qZWblKuOm7V9i5Y Is Instrumentalism a theory? In philosophy we would probably class this as a position rather than a theory. If we are asserting something should be defend this? Sure. If we are simply describing a way of acting, a proclivity to use science, it does not require the same defense, and it is surely not a theory. Here's a series on skepticism that explains the difference between proclivities and beliefs: kzbin.info/www/bejne/iWPWfJJ7hLCVZ7M The Law of the Excluded Middle does not apply to objects or particles, that's a misunderstanding of formal logic. It applies to propositions. What proposition are you claiming that the double slit experiment makes both true and false? I will do a series on non-classical logics at some point (though in all of the votes between that and set theory for my next series, set theory is winning), though Hegel's dialectics cannot really be classified as a type of logic (though that might just be my analytic bias talking), it is more a method of argument. There's a brief video on Hegel coming soon, but I doubt it will get too much in depth on the dialectics. Thanks for your critical feedback, I'm glad you enjoy!

[@Elgeneralsimo69]

I have to agree with Tim; for at least the last 100 years no physics scholar believes that our physics theories are "real", merely useful approximations to reality. Whenever a student claims that the theories of today are real and they "actually" represent reality, that we know all there is to know, I quote Lord Kelvin who 15 years prior to Einstein said: ""There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now, All that remains is more and more precise measurement."" As a physicist, I can't speak to all fields but I can assert that in my field, my peers have abandoned any pretense of "Scientific Realism" thanks to Einstein, via Quantum Mechanics and Relativity, and our personal experience in having different theories be disproved time and time again. Which is exactly why questions like... "Why do you think that we are getting closer to the truth? " ...have no meaning in science since it's not truth, but consistency that is pursued. Consider: Newton is good science; it is consistent within it's context. But we as physicist don't say it's "true" since we also know the Einstein is good science as well. So we don't speak of *the* truth and speak exclusively of "consistency"... Is Newton true? within it's context yes; outside unspecified. Is Einstein true? Same answer. Thus is either reaching *the* truth? No, since each context is contradictory (newton at slow speeds, einstein at fast... or newton large scales and einstein(quantum) at small scales) it can't be the case that there is *A* truth or *THE* truth and instead truth must be Contextual, not absolute.

[@nsp74]

yeah