Scientific Realism 2 - The No-Miracles Argument

[@sperry8399]

you are saving my skin rn - thank you for your clarity - especially in emphasizing what the important like....sides are - or the heart of the different questions/views - you help me understand the significance and value of this subject ( so I can actually engage with the material instead of just trying to memorize enough to get by exams)

[@DMGrass-gb9kg]

This better than my philosophy of science class

[@Regtic]

I'm so glad i found this channel. You should write a book with these kinds of overviews.

[@KaneB]

+Regtic I've considered doing that. I actually put my philosophy of mind lectures together into a book, and it's about 80% finished, but there are so many introductions to philosophy of mind out there that it seemed a bit pointless completing it. I'm thinking I might do it with my series on the philosophy of colour, because there aren't any straightforward introductions to the philosophy of colour that I'm aware of. The problem is it would have to be self-published, and hardly anybody would buy it. So I'm not sure it would be worthwhile for me. I think I reach more people through the youtube videos.

[@ianhruday9584]

I would buy that book if it were in e-text. Also, sorry about Brexit watching the news the other day was depressing.

[@kristinwatkins9945]

Just now watching this video after the last one. Very nice introduction to scientific realism and philosophy of science. Can't wait for the rest. I like that you mentioned Hacking in the last video. I hope you could do a series of videos addressing the social constructionist movement, starting with "The Social Construction of Reality" by Thomas Luckmann and Peter Berger and then Hacking's analysis in his book the "The Social Construction of What?" then hopefully discuss in separate videos race, sex/gender and religion. Just a suggestion, since there's a lot of discussion about it today and misunderstandings of social constructionism by both adherents and detractors. "What exactly is being constructed?" is what Hacking said I believe. But keep up the great work.

[@yourfutureself3392]

Great video and explanation

[@mattphillips538]

Actually, the precision in measurement of the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron is analogous to measuring the distance from NYC to London to the width of the thinnest of human hairs. For typical hairs you'd need a much larger distance. Note also that there is some controversy surrounding ultraprecision in QED.

[@prodprod]

The whole notion of "approximately true" is a very messy expression of scientific realism. Scientific realism would say that there is a "real world" but that, given the limitations of our ability to observe it make theories about it, our statements about it must necessarily contain some element of incompleteness. If I were to say that I was three miles away from Times Square, that might be viewed in several ways. It might be viewed as completely wrong, if I were 3.001 miles away, or it might be viewed as approximately correct. Or it might be viewed as an incomplete answer. Since any theory we have is always based on incomplete information it's always going to be possible, however negligible the possibility) that a theory is going to be replaced by some newer and more complete theory. The best that you can ever say is that a theory is the best predictive model we have that accounts for the world, given what we know of the world at any given time. But there is always the possibility that some new observation previously unpredicted, will require a new theory that will require not only a change in existing theories but in some revolution that will require existing, well-tested theories to be either discarded or absorbed into some larger explanatory framework. Some theories that are displaced in this way were never simply "approximately correct" -- Newton, even though his math is very useful at conventional velocities -- his description is really incompatible with Einstein. It's not that he's right at slow speeds and wrong up near the speed of light. His underlying theory is wrong at all velocities, but very useful. At some point, some theory is going to have to reconcile relativity and QM. It might be string theory or it might be something else, but as of now, these two very well-tested theories aren't simply "approximately correct" -- but they have to be considered incomplete until they are reconciled in some way. On the other hand, the notion that, for instance, the germ theory of disease, is simply an intellectual construct that allows us to predict when someone's going to get sick but doesn't track from a mere conceptual model to actual infectious agents that result in real diseases is just plain silly. Someone who advances that position will have to explain just what the difference is between "accepting" the prediction that being injected with a syringe full of black plague bacillus will cause you to get the black plague and saying that that statement is true -- because it's true.

[@rezamahan7109]

Thank you ❤

[@HamidSain]

is there a metaphysical similarity between the Risky prediction of Science and the Risky prophecy of the Prophet

[@paltieri11]

Excellent!

[@jadwiga0700]

I spotted error. 1 in 51 is not 0.5%. It is 1.96% unless I am confused myself (had to listen two times to this part to grasp what this fallacy is about. cool stuff!)

[@jadwiga0700]

and sorry for nitpicking but also given this assumptions 51 of people will test positive - 50 falsely and 1 truly. I am sorry but I am a bit obsessed with apparent imperfections (unless I am the one making the mistake)

[@KaneB]

That's a facepalm moment. I divided by (nearly) 2 when I should have multiplied. Thanks for pointing that out. (Re your second point though, that 51 people will test positive, I do actually say that in the video...)

[@johnbehan3340]

Just out of curiosity, Kane B, are you a professional philosopher?

[@KaneB]

No; hopefully I will be one day though.

[@johnbehan3340]

Your knowledge of the literature is impressive!

[@Trynottoblink]

Damn, could have fooled me. Do you do nothing but read philosophy in your spare time?

[@KaneB]

@Trynottoblink Yeah, pretty much. I don't have any friends other than my girlfriend; I enjoy listening to music and browsing stuff on the internet but most of my time is spent reading philosophy.

[@Trynottoblink]

@Kane B Interesting. Do you have a job or go to school currently? Thanks for the videos, by the way. I appreciate the work that goes into them since I could only get this detailed information through reading, which as a grad student in the sciences I hardly have time to do.

[@danielwa4819]

Hey, do u have any solid, in-depth textbook for philosophy of science? Im aware of the Godfrey-smith book already.

[@jadwiga0700]

I sense you are against Brexit. do you have any interest in political philosophy? Also thanks for these videos, I watch everyone of them. They are very helpful because philosophy is my hobby (don't have any formal education in philosophy, just reading and listening on my own) and you are very amateur friendly because you explain even simple concepts

[@KaneB]

+jadwiga0700 Yes, I think that Brexit was a bad decision. It's certainly going to be bad for our universities. In general though, no I'm not especially interested in political philosophy.

[@Elgeneralsimo69]

28:27 there is no "approximately true" in this scenario, either you have the SM with the electron or you have something not-SM without the electron. Taking an electron out of the theory nullifies the entire theory and thus there is no "approximate SM" without the electron... there just is no SM! The interdependence on the electron and the electron-neutrino for example demand an all or nothing in such a way that if electrons were proven "false" and necessitated taking out of the theory, the entire theory must follow suit and be thrown out as well and a new one built up from what remains.

[@KaneB]

The theory is approximately correct about the basic constituents of reality. The theory says, for example, that there are gluons, muons, photons, quarks; that muons have a charge of -1e; that quarks have a spin of 1/2; etc - all of this is true (at least assuming that the Standard Model is true). "the entire theory must follow suit and be thrown out as well and a new one built up from what remains" Yes, that's precisely my point. This theory would be completely hopeless. We can construct plenty of theories that are approximately true in one respect or another, but that would not be successful.

[@Elgeneralsimo69]

" The theory is approximately correct about the basic constituents of reality. " Not even approximately true but completely wrong; an electron neutrino in non-sense without an electron to complement it and without electrons the electromagnetic force doesn't exist and won't couple to the weak force. If an electrons the basic constituent of reality, then it removal from the fear he will make the entire theory obsolete since it doesn't represent reality accurately without the electron. On the other hand, if the electron is not a basic constituent of reality, then a theory that use it and build around it is incorrect to begin with and thus its removal is irrelevant since neither theory is representing reality. Thus we arrive at the same conclusion: the removal of the electron from the current framework of the standard model would mean a complete rewrite of the framework, not an "approximately true" one keeping the same framework but with the electron missing as you imply It is NOT the case that a theory without the electron is approximately true therefore so it is not correct that we can construct an infinite number of "approximately true" SM. In essence, we've done plenty of experiments that show that a theory without an electron is implausible to the point that any physics model of reality without it is currently impossible or inconceivable, (same difference)

[@KaneB]

"since it doesn't represent rreality accurately without the electron" Yes it does. As I said, the claims e.g. that there are quarks, that quarks have a spin of 1/2, etc, are all true (assuming the truth of the Standard Model). In that respect the theory represents reality accurately.

[@Elgeneralsimo69]

" In that respect the theory represents reality accurately." Counterexample 1) A quark has fractional EM charge that, in current QCD theory, is why the proton is viewed as an odd composite entity but has integer charge. How is "that" reality accurately represented in the absence of an electron, which is the primitive charged entity that gives charge meaning? Counterexample 2) Electrons are required in the one-loop re normalization of all the other particles. Without the electron, how do we prevent those infinities from blowing up? Counterexample 3) Electrons are integral in the unification of EM force with the weak force for to give the electroweak force. Without the electron, what or how do we do with the "electroweak" force? "(assuming the truth of the Standard Model)." You must assume the COMPLETE truth of a theory, not the PARTIAL truth. The SM is an "all or nothing" construct. Consider going to work in the morning and someone removed all the gas from your car engine overnight. Would you say that is it "approximately true" that the car can get you to work without gas? Likewise, if you remove the electron, then SM may look to you (not to me) like it is still the SM... after all, as you state, we still have spin and other variables... but it will never function as the SM and thus a SM without the electron is "completely false".

[@KaneB]

I assume you'd agree that it's true, for example, that there are gluons, muons, photons, quarks; that muons have a charge of -1e; that quarks have a spin of 1/2 (at least assuming the truth of the Standard Model). But that is just what the altered theory says. So it's accurate in those respects. In other respects it isn't accurate (and in *many* respects it would have severe problems that would prevent it from being useful). I don't see how any of your counterexamples refute or are even relevant to this point. Perhaps one way to make the argument, which I think you're hinting at at when you say that the electron "is the primitive charged entity that gives charge meaning", is to assume a very strong meaning holism for scientific theories, so that the very meaning of terms like "quark" and "photon" is determined by the wider theory. Any change to the theory changes the meaning of all the terms used by it. "Quark" as used by the current SM and "quark" as used by revised theory refer to different things, hence the fact that the former successfully refers does not mean that the latter successfully refers. I don't think that such a strong meaning holism is plausible, but if that's your view then fair enough - I agree that from that perspective, it would be false to say that the revised theory is approximately true, assuming the truth of the original theory. "it is still the SM" No, I wouldn't say that it's still the SM. All I'd say is that it's approximately correct about what the basic constituents of reality are (assuming the SM is true), but that it's a useless theory. (The SM of course is not useless. That's a good indication that this theory is not the SM.) "but it will never function as the SM" Yes, that's precisely my point. The revised theory, despite being approximately correct about the basic constituents of reality, is completely useless.