Philosophy and science

This is a reply to your last post to me in the previous thread:
Message 160No, I don't. No, this step is completely irrelevant. I am not talking about what the table "is" and "is not". Such things are irrelevant. We were discussing whether or not the table exists at all. Not what that existance depends on. What that existance depends on is irrelevant to the table existing. Do you understand this idea? I will try to explain further: Again, all irrelevant.
Again, you're talking about "whether or not it IS a table"... which is irrelevant on coming to a consensus that it does exist.
Some can call it a workbench, and others a sculpture... others can call it God's Personal Alter of Wickedness. How we identify the object is irrelevant in determining whether or not the object exists independant of the observer.
All people, even those who call it a workbench, sculpture or God's PAW will all agree that they can see it and bump their hips into it. They all agree that it exists independantly of the observer. No philosophy required. Yes, atoms are real.
Electrons are real.
Not all observations come directly from light being reflected into human retinas.
However, while you are still unsure that a table is real, perhaps we should deal with the simple examples before moving on? No. I believe that what can be confirmed to be observed independant of the observer is real. C'mon Bikerman, I know you're a smart person, are you telling me that you completely ignored the last part of the table example that clearly states that the observation is repeatable and verifiable? How many of the millions that think God is absolutely real can see Him and bump their hips into Him? Obviously your comment here doesn't make any sense with regards to the example provided. As I mentioned with respect to the atom, not all observations are as direct and simple as others. Especially where the extremely small, extermely large, or extremely fast are concerned.
However, before we move onto the more complicated questions, perhaps we should first agree that tables do, in fact, exist. No?You still haven't shown any reason why I require philosophy of any sort to come to the conclusion that a table objectively exists.

I think that is for the best. I've already shown that it doesn't matter what we call it. Yes, of course it does. That's why everyone agrees that tables exist physically... because their existence can be verified independant of the observer... therefore their existence is objective. I agree, but this doesn't change the fact that the table's existence can be verified independant of the observer... therefore the existence of tables is objective.
Again, you're getting into what the table's existence depends on. Such questions are interesting, but irrelevant in determining if the table exists at all. Wrong. There is no mass, no matter, but there certainly is still a table. Wrong. At a very basic level the table is not 100% solid. But that assumption was never made in order to verify the table's existence. Therefore this information is irrelevant in determining the table's existence.
Again, it doesn't matter if the table is 100% solid, or of it's merely fields interacting with no matter at all. It's still a table and it's existence can still be verified independant of the observer. What that existence depends on is irrelevant in determining if the table exists at all. Wrong again.
There is no YOU in 100% solid form. However, there is a YOU that is just ripples in fields.
There is no TABLE in 100% solid form. However, there is a TABLE that is just ripples in fields.
You are agruing against an assumption that was never made. I never assumed the table was 100% solid. I never assumed the table was "ripples in fields". I assumed that I can see the table, and I can bump my hip into it.
This could be because matter is actually hitting matter... but it doesn't matter, it's irrelevant.
This could be because ripples in fields are interacting and perceived as being able to see the table and being able to bump my hip into it... but it doesn't matter, it's irrelevant.
This could be because the power of God has created an illusion that I perceive as being able to see the table and being able to bump my hip into it... but it doesn't matter, it's irrelevant.Regardless of what the table's existence depends on... the fact that I can see it and bump my hip into it and so can others means it's existence can be verified independantly from the observer which means... the table objectively exists. No. What we think the table's existence depends on is contingent on our own structure and makeup. However, the objective existence of the table need not make any of those assumptions. Again, before we move onto more complicated questions, let's first agree that a table can, indeed, objectively exist without requiring any philosophy whatsoever. If you can point out where philosophy is required, please do so.

What does this have to do with the existence of the table at all? I will try, again, to differentiate for you the difference between the table's existence at all vs. our knoweldge of what the table's existence depends on.(Values are for example only, if required I can dig up some real numbers... however, if the values are the point of contention instead of the ideas, once I spend the time to research and identify specific numbers I will expect you to concede your aruguement).Let's start at the beginning...
At our normal scale we see something we call "a table".
"The table" is the thing I can see and can bump my hip into. It looks like... a table... it has length, width and height.
One of the easiest ways to detect the table's existence at this scale is to measure some lengths.
100 people measure the table's length 100 times each.
All measurements are between 4.8 feet and 5.2 feet.
The measurements can be verified indepently of the observer, therefore the table's existence is objective.
At this scale, our idea of the table's existence seems to depend on the length of a smooth table surface.Let's zoom in a bit...
At a much smaller scale, we see kinks over the table, the surface is no longer smooth.
"The table" is a bumpy thing I can see through a microscope. It looks like jagged cliffs.
One of the easiest ways to detect the table's existence at this scale is to measure some lengths.
100 people measure the table's length which is covered in jagged-cliffs.
All measurements are between 4.850 and 5.150 feet.
100 people measure the distance between jagged-cliff-peaks.
All measurements are between 0.001 and 0.002 feet.
The measurements can be verified independently of the observer, therefore the table's existence is objective.
At this scale, our idea of the table's existence seems to depend on the length of a jagged cliff-covered surface.Zooming in a bit more...
We now see atoms and molecules with empty space between them. A significant number of the table's atoms and molecules are grouped more denslely than others (in about the same volume as our larger-scaled table). An insignificant number of the table's atoms are beyond this more-concentrated area and seem to float off quite far and can be removed from the highly-concentrated area.
One of the easiest ways to detect the table's existence at this scale is to measure some lengths.
One of the easiest ways to detect the table's existence at this scale is to calculate and test some probabilities.
100 people measure the length of the highly concentrated area of table-atoms.
All measurements are between 4.999 and 5.001 feet.
100 people measure the longest length from any number of table-atoms to any other number of table-atoms they can find.
All measurements are between 5 feet and up to (say for the sake of this argument...) 7 feet (some group of table-atoms was found attached to some air-atoms a ways away).
100 people calculate the probability that some table-atoms will attach to some air-atoms and break away to a larger distance.
All calculations give a result which exists, but is rather small.
The measurements can be verified independently of the observer, therefore the table's existence is objective.
The calculations can be verfied (and tested) independently of the observer, therefore the table's existence is objective.
At this scale, our idea of the table's existence seems to depend on a highly-concentrated area of table-atoms, but there is philisophical debate about how to identify the small group of atoms found floating off in the air 2 feet away.Zooming in even more...
We now don't see anything at all. Just empty space everywhere. However, we can detect a field of interaction. This field of interaction has a probability of interacting with other fields depending on some very complicated mathematical equations. There is a highly-dense field of interaction detected within the area of the previously detected high- concentration of table-atoms. There is a much less dense field of interaction (but still theoretically detectable) which spreads out for a significant distance (possibly infinite) from where the high-concentration of table-atoms was.. however the probability of this portion of the field to actually have any interaction drops off significantly (although it does still have a theoretical value).
One of the easiest ways to detect the table's existence at this scale is to calculate the probability of interaction between some fields.
100 people calculate the probability of the highly-dense field of interaction with a similar highly-dense field of interaction at a distance of 0.0001 feet.
All calculations give a result which approaches infinity.
100 people calculate the probability of the highly-dense field of interaction with a similar highly-dense field of interaction at a distance of 2 feet.
All calculations give a result which therectically exists, but is infinitesimally small.
The calculations can be verfied (and tested) independently of the observer, therefore the table's existence is objective.
At this scale, our idea of the table's existence seems to depend on fields of interaction, but there is philisophical debate about how to identify where "the table" ends because the fields have theoretically existing values (although infinitesimally small) for significant distances.Can you identify the difference between existence at all and what that existence depends on now?Notice how each view had errors in measurement (variences) but still objective agreement.
Notice how at each view we gained more information. This new information allowed us to develop new ways on how to detect the table.
Notice that the table's "existence at all" is never debated, it's verifiable independent of the observer (using approprate methods for appropriate scales).Our discussion is about existence-at-all, not about whether or not our large-scale methods for measurement are "completely accurate" or "even useful at all" at much smaller scales... that only deals with what the existence of the table depends on. It is naive to assume that our "large scale methods of detection" should remain exactly the same as our "small scale methods of detection" when we gain so much radically different information at those different scales.Our discussion is not about the philisophical musings on what the table's existence depends on. I fully admit that these philisophical arguements exist. However, again, their practicality is called into significant question as the others are discussing with you.Again, please inform me where the philosophy is being injected in this process of verifying the table's existence at all, it's "objective existence". I don't see it anywhere.

How are atoms and molecules not distinct entities that are objectively agreed to exist? No, it's not anything like that at all. In fact, it's exactly how we delineate the edges of everything in reality at our normal scale.You basically seem to be saying that it's "not intuitive" to call the highest concentration of atoms... "the table"? Do you have any reason why this might be true?
Lets go back to the larger scale again.
We have a normal table. It has been used as a work-table by someone. We walk into the room and the table is there, with chips in it.. and some chips are strewn across the floor... up to 8 feet away from the table.Using your argument... we are unable to understand that "the table" is still the 5-foot main piece of furniture. It's so difficult to tell the difference between the chips on the floor and the table itself to the point that you consider it "equally valid" to say that the table's length is now 13 feet because some chips are that far away...Do you understand how ridiculous this is?Do you understand how this is an exact analogy of the atom-sized visualization of the table?Normal Scale
-We have a chipped up table in the middle of the room
-We have table-chips scattered across the floor
-I say it is obvious that "the highest concentration of table-material" (the chipped up table in the middle of the room that is still 5 feet long) is "the table"
-You say that "with equal validity" we can draw the outline of "the table" to include all the chips on the floor so that now we can say the length of our table is 13 feet long.
...you don't see the utter ridiculousness of this?Atomic Scale
-We have a significantly higher concentration of table-atoms in the middle of the room
-We have significantly lower concentrations of table-atoms strewn throughout the room
-I say it is obvious that "the highest concentration of table-material" (the higher concentration of table-atoms in the middle of the room that is still 5 feet long) is "the table"
-You say that "with equal validity" we can draw the outline of "the table" to include all the atoms strewn throughout the room regardless of their insignificant concentration compared to the atoms grouped together in the middle of the room. Therefore, we can say that the table takes up the entire room.
...you don't see the utter ridiculousness of this?Why, at a normal scale, would you have no problems understanding that the significantly-lower concentration of "table-material" should be disregarded just because it's obviously no longer part of the main, highly-concentrated area of "table material"... but at a smaller scale all of a sudden you can't seem to relate? The similarities of the analogy cannot be more aligned. Your position is shown to be curiously inconsistent. Unless we decide to stay consistent and we use the exact same method of delineation we use at our normal scale and identify "the table" as that volume which contains the highest concentration of "table-material".

Yes, actually, it's pretty much exactly the same. "It isn't difficult at all because we can detect the significantly higher concentration of atoms and we can detect the significantly lower concentration of atoms"
See? Pretty much exactly the same. I understand that perfectly. What this says is that you're not familiar with the smaller scale. And you, personally, feel much safer with your greater familiarity with the larger scale. So, because you're ignorant of the smaller scale, no one else can use the same method of delination for the smaller scale that they use for the larger one.
...not a very convincing arguement. You do understand that we can move the microscope around over the entire surface of the table, right?
You do understand that because the microscope lens is restricted in it's size, this doesn't restrict us from still using it to identify the entire table, right? For the exact same reason we do so at the macroscopic scale... because that's the boundary that seperates the highest concentration of table-material from the insignificant low concentrations of table-material. Just like the work-table surrounded by wood chips. Who says we do? Why would it matter?
Does it matter at the macroscopic scale? Do we care if the table is one coherent thing or a bunch of wood-chips collected together? No, of course we don't... because the only thing we care about is identifying the volume that contains the high concentration of table-material, at all scales. Yup. Just like there's a difference between the table, the air and the wood-chips at the macroscopic level. Yes, things look different at the microscopic scale. So what? It is still very intuitive and very easy to identify a significantly higher concentration of table-material in one area, and a signficantly lower concentration of table-material elsewhere. Your personal discomfort about what the high concentration of table-material looks like to you is irrelevant, and irrational. Because they compose "the highest concentration of table-material" that we can detect. Which is the exact same method we use to identify "the table" at the macroscopic level when it's surrounded by wood chips. Seems rather analogous to me. Again, your personal incredulity with how things "look different" at the microscopic scale has no bearing on a rational approach to identifying the table. A rational approach which is exactly the same approach that we use at the macroscopic scale. Namely, that "the table" is identified by "the highest concentration of table-material".

"We identify a monitor as a monitor. Why? There are loads of different high-concentrations of monitor-material, but we ignore those to concentrate on the one main difference in density - the difference between the highest concentration of monitor-material and the signficantly lower concentrations of monitor-material." And yet, as I just showed above, the analogy still works just fine... even on your new example. Probably because it can be so easily generalised."-material" is used as a simple description for "whatever it is we're detecting that we percieve to make up the object at whatever scale we're currently within".
At a normal scale "-material" is used to describe the glass, the plastic, the electronics...
At an atomic scale "-material" is used to describe all the various atoms that are used to make up the monitor
At the smallest scale we can currently identify "-material" is used to describe the fields of interaction involved
(...for a deeper explanation, please see Message 51 where I originally laid this all out) That depends on what you mean by "physical". If you mean what we're supposed to be talking about... objective existence... then yes, of course it physically exists, it's called a subdivision, possibly a Christian subdivision. If you mean "100% solid"... then what you mean by "physical entity" is a strawman that I have explained many, many times now to be irrelevant. It's also a load of houses.
Just like a table made of many wood-chips is still a table... and it's also a load of wood-chips... and it's also a load of table-atoms...
It's easier if you pick one scale and stick with it, though, mixing them up and attempting to talk about them in an equal context only seems to add confusion. Oh, I see. No experimental data directly is supposed to imply that we don't have any experimental data at all? Or that the experimental data we do have is somehow inferior? If we can't see things with the naked eye then there's no possible method for objective detection? If we don't know everything, we know nothing? If you didn't mean any of that, and our verifiable indirect methods of detections are equally valid as our verifiable direct methods... then what, really, are you trying to say? Are you sure this isn't an arguement from personal incredulity?Do you have any positive-promotion at all for your claim that philosophy is requred to identify objective existence? Or will we continue to simply further explain my position while you suggest more examples and request minor clarifications? You still haven't given a single reason at all why philosophy needs to be considered when identifying objective existence.

We've talked about this before.
Again, what we call it is irrelevent. You can call it a monitor, you can call it a sophisticated looking-glass, you can call it God's Golden Glittery Eye.
It doesn't matter what we call it.
It has "material" (as previously defined).
This material is distinct from the material around it.
The natural, obvious and easy-to-generalise form of identification of the boundary of this material is by it's concentration/density when compared to it's surroundings. We've talked about this before.
What is arbitrary about the difference in density between the air surrounding a table, and the table itself?
That seems like a pretty significant, obvious and objective difference to me. I can't remember ever hearing of someone who was unable to identify the difference in density between air and tables. Of course it is. Because we can detect and identify the obvious difference between "the high concetration of table-material" (the table) versus "the significantly lower concentration of table material" (the water).
Are you trying to imply that we cannot determine the difference in density between water and tables?
The sillyness of your position is showing again. No other rule is required, as shown above, we can still easily detect the boundary of "high concentration of table-material" vs. "significantly lower concentration of table-material". This is obvious unless you are trying to imply that we generally swim through tables? Now it's balloon's that are the same density as water? Why wouldn't we be able to use the same method to detect the balloon? You keep saying this, but you seem unable to show why it should be taken seriously. In fact, you seem to be giving lots of reasons why I should start thinking that you've been pulling my leg this whole time. Seriously? You have a difficult time identifying the difference in density between a table and water?? First I used the same method I've always used to show you how tables can be identified to objectively exist at our normal scale.
You then abandoned tables at our normal scale and moved onto tables at the microscopic scale.
I then used the same method I've always used to show you how tables can be identified to objectively exist at the microscopic scale.
You then abandoned tables altogether and moved onto monitors.
I then used the same method I've always used to show you how monitors can be identified to objectively exist.
You then abandoned monitors and moved onto tables-and-balloons-under-water.
I then used the same method I've always used to show you how tables-and-balloon-under water can be identified to objectively exist.I'm starting to wonder how far these goalposts are going to go...My method successfully worked for the example I provided.
Then, after you tried 3 times to produce an example that foils the method... we see that the exact same method works successfully for anything you can come up with.Yet you continue to claim it doesn't work "in general?" I will fully admit that my arguement is not very convincing at all.... for anyone who is having a hard time determining the difference in density between tables and water,However, for the rest of the general population of the world where such a difference is simple, and objectively verifiable... I think it'll work out just fine... and it does.

Then why haven't you been able to do so yet? Of course. "Discontinuity" is just another way to note the difference in "the high concentration of table-material" vs. the surrounding "low concentration of table-material".
So, yes, we use the exact same method, again and again and again, everytime you move the goalpost, everytime you ask for minor clarification of the exact same concept. You are playing with the term "similar" here.
Yes, the discontinuities within the table go "table-material", then "open space", then "table-material"...
Yes, the discontinuity between the table and the floor goes "table-material" (table-wood), then "open space", then "table-material" (floor-wood)...
So, yes, in that sense I agree that they are "similar".However, it's the huge difference in significance that seperates these two different kinds of discontinuities that makes them extremely different in a very obvious and easily verified way (independent of the observer). Again, lets view the situation within each scale to make it clear.At the normal (macroscopic) scale:
-We cannot easily detect discontinuities within the table to the point that it's very easy to imagine that they do not even exist
-We can easily detect the discontinuity between the table and the floor
-It can be verified independent of the observer for anyone to identify the significant difference between these discontinuities
-Therefore, "the table" can be identified objectivelyAt the very small (microscopic) scale:
-We can now easily detect discontinuities within the table
-We can now see that the discontinuity between the table and the floor is orders of magnitude larger than any of the discontinuities within the table
-It can be verified independent of the observer for anyone to identify the significant difference between these discontinuities
-Therefore, "the table" can be identified objectivelyWhat you're bringing up only sounds convincing if we take thing out of context and do a little mix-and-match with our views at different scales. Like this:
-It can be said that at the macroscopic scale, the discontinuity between table and floor is "small"
-It can be said that at the microscopic scale, the discontinuities within the table itself are "small"This is the only way to compare these two different discontinuities and somehow get confused that they could be difficult to differentiate.
However, as we look at each scale within it's own context (as I showed above), it is obvious to see that this confusion doesn't exist at all.Again, I have asked you many, many times and you keep ignoring the question:
Where, specifically, am I injecting any amount of "philosophy" in order to objectively identify "the table"?Remember, your claim was that philosophy was required in order to objectively identify anything.
I have shown you with my own example (a table) that we can objectively identify the object without philosophy.
I have shown you with your example (a table at the atomic scale) that we can objectively identify the object without philosophy.
I have shown you with your example (a monitor) that we can objectively identify the object without philosophy.
I have shown you with your example (a table underwater) that we can objectively identify the object without philosophy.
I have shown you with your example (a balloon underwater) that we can objectively identify the object without philosophy.
I have shown you with your example (a wooden table on a wooden floor) that we can objectively identify the object without philosophy.Please, stop adding more examples. Even if you do, somehow, come up with an example where my method cannot work... I have still shown that your claim is false that philosophy is required in order to objectively identify anything.If you still believe your claim is true, shouldn't we be able to work within the 6 examples we have (5 of which are yours), for you to show me the part that cannot be verified independent of the observer? Shouldn't you be able to show how all 6 examples must, necessarily, inject some philosophy somewhere before we can objectively identify their existence? Why do you keep trying to complicate the examples? If your claim is true, shouldn't you be able to show that it's true for the simplist of examples?If you insist on adding another example, I'm afraid I'm going to have to assume that you no longer think that everything requires philosophy in order to be objectively identified and that you have now moved on to hoping that at least one thing, somewhere... requires philosophy. I'm not sure I agree with that either, but I am a lot less passionate about testing such a claim.

And now we have a 7th example...Look, I don't have time to keep correcting every minor nuance you can imagine. There are an infinite number of examples you can come up with to have me further explain to you how the exact same method works for them all.Here, you said it yourself, you've added "drawers"... which are not "the table" we were talking about before. Now you're merely conflating the social convention of calling a basic table "a table" as well as calling a-table-that-also-has-drawers "a table". My method can easily be used to identify "a drawer" as it can be used to identify "a table" as it can be used to identify:
-nails
-screws
-glue
-pieces of wood
-pieces of plastic
-pieces of metal
-which we can then all use simple social convention to identify "a table with drawers" or anything else you dream up as well.You have proved (by introducing yet another example) that you cannot deal with the simple examples and must needlessly add complexity in order to make an attempt at hiding the areas where you keep claiming philosophy is "required".I will stop debating this topic with you now.
I hereby concede all my arguments and accept defeat, I cannot and will never be able to explain my method for the never-ending series of examples you keep demanding. Lucky for me, this is a message board and I am content with allowing others to read our exchange and make up their own minds.Thanks for the chat,
If nothing else, our talk has currently solidified to me that "philosophy" is not required in any way shape or form in order to objectively identify the existence of any object.

Mod, good to see you again. Here to teach me some more philosofickleness? Were you making more of a general-post? I think so, and I pretty much agree with everything you mentioned.To clarify my position, I haven't been attempting to show that philosophy as a whole is entirely useless or anything like that. My posts have only been centered on one specific idea: Showing that philosophy is not required in order to objectively detect the existence of something.It sprang from the older topic, where Bikerman claimed: I think I've shown how people can understand an actual, real, objective table (or table underwater, or table with drawers, even) while entirely avoiding philosophy. I agree. I certainly don't think philosophy is entirely useless... in conjuction with the points you raised, it can also serve a purpose along the lines of brainstorming, which has it's own importance in new discoveries and expanding human-thinking and curiosity. I just don't think it's required in order to objectively detect the existence of things.

How do you reconcile this: (Which I think is what I'm talking about)With this: (Which I think is what Bikerman is talking about)You seem to claim both are "true" and I don't understand the difference between the two statements.Unless you're implying that it depends on whether or not you consider naive empiricism to be philosophy?Or are you talking about the difference between detecting the objective existence of a table, and knowing that a table exists objectively?I suppose my stance on that is that I'm only concerned with "detecting" and couldn't care less about "knowing".I'd say such a thing because once we get into "knowing" (in a strict sense) we're into a definitions game...What is "knowing"?
What is "understanding"?Can we actually "know" something, if nothing can ever really be proven? Does it matter?
If we mean "know" in the sense of "pretty close, but not actually 100%"... is it really "knowing" or just a social convention to replace the words "current detection".
Do we use the word "know" out of social convention even though no one actually ever "knows" anything at all?
Does it make any difference or are these simply fun question?I find those questions all irrelevant. If I can detect a table, and you can detect the same table, and everyone else detects the same table... I don't really care if I "know" it's there or not.What is "philosophy"?
Again, we can use an extremely general defintion of philosophy that is "the search for wisdom". In which case, pretty much everything is philosophy.
Or we can use the defintion I've been assuming, which is something along the lines of "all learning exclusive of technical precepts and practical arts"... Point taken.However, it should be noted that babies can "understand" tables, and I'm pretty sure they're not invoking any philosophy.Which raises another point, do we consider it to be "using philosophy" if someone else thinks we're doing it, but we're not actually conciously aware (in which case, we may not be doing any philosophy and simply detecting things)? Is philosophy one of those things, similar to "music", that can be defined pretty much by whoever uses the term? In which case, Bikerman and I would both be correct at the same time... which only seems to add credence to those saying that philosophy is generally useless.This post is a rambling mess... but I don't feel like spending the time to clean it up, hope it makes some sense to someone.