Inconsistency in Science: An Argument for Dialetheism?

[@KaneB]

Scientific realism: kzbin.info/www/bejne/l2G4qXmegLScfMk Idealization as a challenge to realism: kzbin.info/www/bejne/Zp27mYGaqayWptk Science and metaphysics: kzbin.info/www/bejne/n4KlanSlm9N2n9k

[@loganlawrence1476]

Probably my favorite philosophy channel on KZbin right now. Extremely clear and in depth

[@KaneB]

Thank you!

[@justus4684]

Next video: How trees prove dialetheism

[@MrAdamo]

Next next video: 6 arguments against dialetheism, debunked

[@KaneB]

this but unironically

[@whycantiremainanonymous8091]

You mean the mathematical object? Of course they do!

[@whycantiremainanonymous8091]

About the consistency of the observable domain (see the slide around 33:00), I don't think this will do. The realm of observation is well-known to be inconsistent. The same object may appear different to different observers, or to the same observer at different times (perhaps even to the same observer at the same time, though this is very unusual). The tedious protocoles designed to ensure the objectivity of scientific tests and observations are there precisely because "raw" observations are inconsistent. The only reason we raise the demand of consistency to our scientific observations in the first place stems from our commitment to the view (whether or not this view is ultimately correct) that the reality our observations report on is itself ontologically consistent.

[@KaneB]

I'm not inclined to view those sorts of cases as inconsistencies. Verity and Sydney are both observing the same object: "X appears blue to Verity" and "X appears black to Sydney" don't contradict each other. Of course, we could say simply: "X is blue" and "X is black", and assuming that no object can be both blue all over and black all over at the same time, we'd have an apparent contradiction. But it's clear how those appearances are relativized to different observers, and once we make that relativization explicit, the contradiction is resolved. Having said this, there are cases that a bit more tricky for the friend of consistency. Graham Priest has given the example of sitting on a train, looking at another train out the window, and the other train starts moving. There can be a moment where the visual appearance gives the impression that the train I'm on is accelerating, while there is no otolithic sense of acceleration. So maybe we have the appearance: "I am accelerating and it is not the case that I'm accelerating." I think we can apply the relativization strategy in this case too, but it's less obvious how that works than for the case of different observers. As for the protocols for collecting and systematizing data, there are various reasons we might do that beyond eliminating inconsistencies. For example, since it must be the case that experiments are in principle reproducible, we need to ensure that data are publicly accessible in some sense, so we need to specify conditions where we have a consensus on what is observed in those conditions. Take the case of the canals of Mars, where some scientists reported seeing straight lines on the surface of Mars and others did not. I don't think the problem here was inconsistency; it was just that it was unclear what the data was. There's a difference between "it appears that Mars has straight lines on its surface and does not have straight lines on its surface" and "it is unclear how the surface of Mars appears." Another way to look at this: I don't see anything in principle problematic about the idea of an apparent perceived contradiction that gains near-universal assent. So, a box that can be perceived to be both empty and not empty, at the same time and in the same sense. Of course, it would always be possible to explain such reports as hallucinations. But if enough people perceived such a thing, and in a broad enough range of conditions, where there is no clear mechanism for how such a hallucination could occur, we might well decide to take it as a real phenomenon to be accommodated by our scientific theories. We would need to come up with theories that explain how the box can be both empty and not empty. Perhaps some sort of modification of the some of the concepts in quantum mechanics would do the trick (re cats in boxes that are both alive and dead; maybe there are circumstances where we can perceive unresolved superpositions...)

[@whycantiremainanonymous8091]

@@KaneB Historically, the idea that different perceptions of the same object should be relativised to their respective observers was itself a procedure that philosophers in Greece came up with to "save" the underlying consistency and objectivity of the world. Protagoras, famously, claimed that "man is the measure of all things", by which he meant objects have no underlying properties outside human perception. Plato and Aristotle begged to differ. Their motive was that reality must be consistent, and their method was distinguishing between how an object appears to an observer and how it in fact is. Today we think this distinction is plain common sense, but that's because it's been drilled into us since early childhood. And as for boxes appearing both empty and full, well, we have had drawings appearing to be both of ducks and of rabbits, dresses appearing two different colours, audio clips of both "yanni" and "laurel"...

[@whirlwind872]

Inconsistencies in abstractions arise from the very way our brains work. We identify patterns and store them as symbols/objects in our mind. Physical objects are perceived as objects despite being made of an infinite number of constituents. For example we identify a chair as a chair without viewing its legs and arm rests and cushioning, or the material properties or the atoms. We see a "chair" as we have stored the particular visual pattern in our mind as an object - a "chair." The same is true of abstract concepts. We store concepts as symbols/objects in our mind and label them. Even things as simple as numbers are simply stored symbols representing real world patterns. This is how we reason and it's why numbers, logic, math, and reasoning are so intertwined. In the case of both numbers AND abstract concepts, we store them as discrete objects in our mind and then perform transformations on them with other stored objects in order to reason to a conclusion. An abstract concept is merely an object your mind has constructed as shorthand for a pattern it identified. The patterns you can identify and store as objects have no relation to each other necessarily, so they can be contradictory and inconsistent.

[@nonchalant-turtle]

> what would it mean for a planet to spin and not spin at the same time Ask an electron, which most definitely has angular momentum and is also not spinning. You could concoct a strongly magnetic planet whose surface is slowly rotating but has zero angular momentum.

[@Self-Duality]

Nice. I like to think of “scientific inconsistency” as a function of (1) underdetermination and (2) genuine evolution. One can show, with a strong dose of fancy footwork, that (1) and (2) are mutually recursive.

[@tomarchelone]

The particle and continuous views on liquid is just two models that are convenient for the tasks they are used in. All models in science are approximations. Even if there was a supercomplex model that reflects all the properties of the fluid, then still it would make sense to use simple approximations that work for the problems of interest to us. Noone postulates that "It's only particles" or "NO! It is continuois!". There is no inconsistency here. A straw man at its worst.

[@和平和平-c4i]

Of course there are inconsistencies in the development of physics, but actually only temporary inconsistencies, not true ones (it means there is no dialetheism in the physical word). Realism is usually not understood as the belief that ALL our best theories and approximate models are true, it is the belief that our theories and models are some approximation of the reality. Inconsistencies between approximations of some objects does not imply an inconsistent object: we can think that electrons exist but that we simply do not know them perfectly yet... Only a weird kind of extreme irrealistic realism is refuted by the inconsistency argument. The consistency of a theory is a crucial epistemic value. As an ontological principle, it is interesting too from a realist perspective.

[@InventiveHarvest]

In econ, we find inconsistency, ambiguity, points of discontinuation, etc. I reject the idea that consistency is a pragmatic necessity for science. Now, if I described these inconsistencies to a philosopher, they would just tell me that it is not a true contradiction, even when I describe it as "it is the case that X and it is not the case that X". Anyway, another good video sir. When will we see more chocolate reactions?

[@tomholroyd7519]

The legal literature is full of examples

[@KaneB]

>> When will we see more chocolate reactions? A dangerous idea; I don't need more excuses to gorge on chocolate!

[@rud69420]

Would they say it’s not a true contradiction because they don’t think the contradiction is true or because they don’t think you’re stating a contradiction?

[@InventiveHarvest]

@@rud69420 they don't think I'm staying a contradiction. This is in the same way that "the switch is on" and "the switch is off" is not a contradiction.

[@kspfan001]

In mainstream econ they rely too much on arbitrary pseudo-psychology to explain actions of so-called rational individuals and haven't even been able to consider time in their overly deterministic, pre-modernistic models. The problems you refer to that plague mainstream econ emerge because the field uses faulty foundational assumptions, not because there is an inherent inconsistency within the nature of what is being explained/measured. There are areas of econ that do not have the kinds of problems you are talking about like econophysics, but they require unlearning basically everything hammered into your head during the course of an economics degree. There are contradictions within our political-economy but they are found within the foundations of social relations of production itself and the evidence for them emerges once you treat individual actors as a stochastic system and use statistical mechanics to model it. I am open to considering dialetheism for the fundamental nature of reality, but it's just not true that it need be considered to economics as there do exist areas of study within it that are developing consistent models that produce distributions that are strikingly similar to our human capitalist society. One example so you can see what I am talking about: The Social Architecture of Capitalism Ian Wright Published 5 January 2004 Economics Physica A-statistical Mechanics and Its Applications

[@jimmyfaulkner1855]

Hi Kane B. I was wondering could you do a video in the future exploring certain philosophical paradigms in philosophy/metaphysics, such as process philosophy (and maybe “neo-Humean metaphysics” alongside the “Powers metaphysic”). I find it difficult to understand exactly what it is and what are its main philosophical tenets. Thanks

[@KaneB]

That's not a topic I find particularly engaging to be honest.

[@michaelmilson7538]

Process philosophy? Was that Alfred whitehead?

[@joshuaim3263]

@@michaelmilson7538 Yes, probably also Deleuze and Bergson

[@ravenecho2410]

stat mech helps resolve micro to macro behavior in terms of collisions

[@dominiks5068]

Whether we are justified in believing contradictory theories seems to heavily depend a) on one's intuitions and b) on one's theory of epistemology - let's say we are foundationalists who think that we can recognise necessary truths via rational intuition, let's assume that I have the rational intuition that the LNC is necessarily true and let's assume that those basic beliefs form the basis for all other non-basic beliefs... then the fact that a theory is inconsistent would not just be a mark against that theory, but would rule it out from the very beginning - all other theoretical virtues would be irrelevant, if that theory of epistemology is correct. The whole "theoretical virtues" section of the video makes sense *if we are coherentists*, but coherentism is pretty unpopular

[@KaneB]

Sure, you can just rule out true contradiction from the start. But then, the dialetheist can just rule them in: "I have the rational intuition that the LNC is false, and this is a basic belief..." If our aim is to assess the arguments for and against different positions, neither of these approaches seems particularly probative; you're pretty much just declaring that you're not interested in the discussion. I don't see any incompatibility between theoretical virtues and foundationalism (or infinitism). Take phenomenal conservatism. If it seems to me that P, then I'm justified in believing that P, in the absence of defeaters. I might have seemings that directly support particular theoretical virtues: it seems to me that empirical adequacy, consistency, simplicity, and explanatory power are truth-tracking. But sometimes these criteria conflict, so sometimes I'm forced to weigh them against each other.

[@randomthings17493]

it's impossible to imagine an inconsistent object, so it's impossible to believe in one

[@KaneB]

​@@randomthings17493 I don't have any trouble imagining inconsistent objects, and I'm not sure I'd agree that belief is constrained by imaginability.

[@justus4684]

​@@KaneB what inconsistent object can you imagine?

[@KaneB]

@@justus4684 Caveat: As I discussed in my recent "True contradictions" video, my actual view is that there is no fact of the matter whether an object is inconsistent. Consistency and inconsistency are properties of our descriptions of objects, and for any object at all, we can select concepts that make our description of it consistent or inconsistent. With that said, some examples of objects that are traditionally classed as inconsistent objects, that I would say I can imagine: - the Penrose stairs - square circles - a surface that is both red all over and green all over - the Devil's tuning fork - the set of all sets that are not members of themselves - the proposition "this proposition is false" - a box that is both empty and not empty

[@badabing3391]

trying to learn how light works when i was in middleschool was possibly the most frustrating experience i had with learning. Still dont really know honestly.

[@m.f.3347]

in my 1st year optics class the professor emphasised that "how light works" is contingent on how you're intending to use that knowledge. If you're simply calculating refraction angles, it may be sufficient to treat light as a purely geometric object. In more advanced applications, a quantum approach may be required.

[@badabing3391]

@m.f.3347 afaik the qm model most accurately depicts light especially as it interacts with electrons bound in atoms, but from my more casual browsing these days i learned that people working in optics often have to consider photons from more classical EM theory not just for practicality, but sometimes for further accuracy. Unless im wrong, this does make it hard for me to wrap my head around things like how exactly beams behave inside a lens. I do not have much more than a freshman physics background though, so i might have to end up taking an optics class if i really want to 😅.

[@tykjpelk]

Well, classic electromagnetic theory will take you quite far but doesn't explain something like a laser, LED, or a photodetector. I work in nanophotonics and "how does light work" is one hell of a question. We have layers upon layers of theories such as ray optics, wave optics, electromagnetic optics, nonlinear optics and quantum electrodynamics, and you pick the one most appropriate for explaining what you're after. If your choice is too simplified the theory won't predict what you're after, if it's too complex you will be too bogged down in the details to actually get anywhere.

[@shafouingue]

A potential topic that you could cover, that comes to my mind, is the difference between observable and unobservable

[@KaneB]

I've talked about that in a few videos: kzbin.info/www/bejne/e4KTgGWYhZmXesk kzbin.info/www/bejne/bmO2koado89_ZtE kzbin.info/www/bejne/n3W2ZKOcdrN4bZo

[@shafouingue]

@@KaneB Thanks

[@cunjoz]

next video: quantum mechanics: an argument for mind body dualism?

[@bobs2809]

Our ancestors were worms. We will seem like worms to our descendants some day. We should not deceive ourselved into believing that we understand the world as it is rather than the incomplete perspective of a still evolving worm.

[@italogiardina8183]

Science and antilogy seem to be team players within modernization and it's alethic discontents.

[@HudBug]

i’d just accept anti-realism about science and start a new reformulation of logical rules

[@KaneB]

Yeah, I think if it turns out that realists are committed to inconsistent objects, a lot of people would take that as a convincing reason to be an antirealist. I wonder why this is, though. After all, science has overturned plenty of other common-sense views about the world. What makes consistency so special?

[@HudBug]

@@KaneBconsistency is relevant because if i know that P is true, i can without doubt know that ~P is false, in nearly every case. how lovely! suppose there are some beliefs, that A, B, and that P are true, are all had by me or another. suppose also that A and B entail ~P. i can be convinced, or they can be convinced by me, that one of these beliefs, A, B, P, or ~P, is false. again, in *nearly* every case. oh my lord, how lovely!

[@fluffymassacre2918]

Someone has never seriously studied science

[@SystemsMedicine]

Let me help you out here, buddy…. Substitute the word ‘approximate’ for ‘inconsistent’, and jettison the use of the word ‘truth’ when discussing science. Most of the issues in your video evaporate under this substitution. You might reason about ‘approximate models for objects’ instead of reasoning about ‘inconsistent objects’. Then your need to analyze belief in inconsistent objects becomes rather moot. The so-called law of non contradiction is not of much use when actually doing science; ignore it. By the way, molecular biologists are archetypes of scientists who experiment and reason with high levels of (apparent) inconsistencies in experiments and their theoretical interpretations. [But really these are more reasonably labeled as approximations.] This is largely due to high levels of noise and uncertainties in their field of science, due to such things as physiological complexities and extreme organic chemistry difficulties.

[@tomholroyd7519]

Just like the "imaginary number" i, which is not imaginary, a truth value that satisfies "A & ~A" exists. It's both true and false, like the Liar. Existence is proven. Let's move on

[@unstablepc5913]

The imaginary number is not a truth value that satisfies A & ~A. I shudder to think how quaternions might be interpreted...

[@AntiCitizenX]

The sheer volume of misinformation and misrepresentation of science in this video is almost impressive. Scientists do NOT believe inconsistencies. If an inconsistency emerges in science, it either means the theory is wrong, or it has been mal-formed. Nobody goes around believing inconsistencies in the manner that this video suggests.

[@KaneB]

The sheer lack of comprehension in your comment is also almost impressive. At no point in the video is it suggested that scientists in fact believe inconsistencies.

[@AntiCitizenX]

@@KaneB then I am very confused. You gave several examples at the beginning of this video of supposed “contradictions” in science. You make it a point to emphasize that dialetheism is an argument for supposed “true” contradictions. You emphasize that science itself supposedly supports this. If that’s not the case, then your entire presentation makes no sense, and it is even more incoherent than I gave your credit for. You basically just said “here are some things in science we know are wrong. Now let’s use them as a foundation for believing in true contradictions.” Heck, it’s literally the title of the video. And now you’re telling me that you never said or implied any of this???? Dude, did you even watch your own video? Im sorry, but that is simply misinformed nonsense. You present a situation that is objectively in conflict with basic reality. You cannot take things in science which are universally considered “wrong,” only to present them as things people “accept” and which justify true contradictions. If that’s what dialetheism says, then fine, but you’re not making an effort to separate facts from fiction.

[@KaneB]

@@AntiCitizenX The claim is that there are certain theories that entail contradictions. It doesn't follow from this that scientists in fact believe those contradictions. This should be obvious to anybody with rudimentary reasoning abilities, but I guess that rules you out. Anyway, the argument presented in the video is that people who accept a particular argument for scientific realism are committed, by the same reasoning, to accepting true contradictions. Obviously this is presented as a *challenge* to conventional realists. Most realists don't accept true contradictions. Most of them would take the line you suggested: the theories in question are simply wrong or malformed. But it is one thing to *say* this, quite another to show that this can be coherently maintained given one's other commitments. I think this is all made perfectly clear in the video, and my conversations about this video with other people suggest to me that your confusion is your problem, not mine.

[@AntiCitizenX]

@@KaneB *It doesn't follow from this that scientists in fact believe those contradictions.* Right. It follows that scientists fully REJECT such theories as being true, which completely undermines the argument you're presenting. Why do you accuse me of lacking "rudimentary reasoning abilities" when this simple point very clearly undermines the entire thesis of this video? It's literally the title of your video, dude. Why did you even bother bringing it up when you apparently know full well that they are considered FALSE? *Obviously this is presented as a challenge to conventional realists.* False things we know are false are a challenge to realists? What? Again... Why do you accuse me of lacking "rudimentary reasoning abilities" when this should be a rather front-and-center point in your own presentation?

[@KaneB]

@@AntiCitizenX LOL. It's actually remarkable how dumb you are, especially given the high opinion you seem to have of yourself. (Don't worry, I'm not basing this just on your comments here. I've read your blog and seen your videos, so that's an informed assessment.)