lesterdelzick

Epistemology 201: The Science of Science
---------
(Scientific Reduction)

If asked what science is, most people would reply that science is
empirical in nature and conducts experiments to falsify unsound
hypotheses. Some might also vouchsafe that mathematics is a
scientific discipline to the extent that unsound hypotheses can be
falsified through contradictions with foundational axioms. But why
do we need science at all and how is it used?

Let's look at reality in general through unscientific eyes. What we
see is a collation of events in historical terms. We see them succeed
one another and opine that various events cause one another. There is
no way to determine whether this is true in any fundamental sense,
only that history documents that various sequences of events have in
fact succeeded one another.

So, what is science is expected to do? What is apparent to everyone is
that we have one historical tapestry of events and science is expected
to make sense of that tapestry. But how to do this? Basically science
can only make sense of the tapestry by reducing the number and
complexity of causes evident for events. Science must take the run of
events evident to everyone and show which characteristics and
properties govern the emergence of certain events as manifested in the
characteristics and properties of other events.

In so doing science regresses consideration of events to properties of
events and shows how the emergence of one event is implied in the
emergence of other events. And thereby science reduces the panoply
of history to manifold considerations evident in all or most events.


Methodology
---------

Initially at least empirical sciences approach this reduction in the
same way mathematics does through finite tautological regression.
However, whereas mathematics regresses its observations through to
consistency with foundational axioms, through the vagaries of history
empirical sciences are left only with contradiction between empirical
observations as the basis for its regressive foundation.

Consequently empirical science has been left with no understanding of
its own intellectual mechanics. It pretends to be different from logic
and mathematics and claims no finite tautological regressions limit
its empiricism. However, this is only partly true just as it is only
partly true for mathematics and logic. None of the three have finite
ending points that limit application of the respective disciplines.
But all three have finite tautological regressions which define and
limit their starting points, what I refer to as ur regressions.


Ur Regressions for True, False, and Not
--------------

True, False, and Not are defined in reciprocal terms in the following
way. For any empirical observation [subject] the proposition

p:[subject][not subject] is always true. And the proposition

p:[subject not subject] is always false. And the empirical observation

P:[not] is always true because the proposition

P:[not not] is always false.

--------------

These seem to be the only reducible definitions for true, false, and
not. The problem is analogous to the definition of factorability in
mathematics where given i=j*k we have for any number, i, two factors,
j and k but only one equation, which means there is no general
solution possible for factors of i lying between 1 and i.

--------------

In other words every empirical observation is regressable through
tautologies or it cannot be true because tautologies in the formal
sense are always true. Tautologies are not perfect, however, because
even though they account for everything true they do not account for
everything. In order to do that they would also have to account not
only for everything true but everything false as well. And we find
that perfecting ordinary tautologies requires the addition of some
component which is always false. For example, for

t:[subject][not subject]

t:[subject][not subject][subject not subject]

wherein the self contradictory alternative [subject not subject] is
appended to an ordinary tautology to form a comprehensive or perfect
tautology inclusive of all possibilities.

However such a regression through to self contradiction is not
possible in the case of one empirical observation [not] which forms
an irreducible regression directly in tautuological terms:

T:[not][not not]

inclusive of all possibilities. From which we conclude [not] or
contradiction forms the basis of all tautological regressions in
general, which in fact is exactly consistent with the form of the
tautology itself.

Regards - Lester

tadchem

Science is most decidedly NOT a democracy. It matters squat what "most people" think.


Certainly no empirical scientist would make such an assertion. Science
relies on falsifiability primarily through empirical testing;
mathematical falsifiability comes through rigorous logic.

We need science because sometimes our best logic is inadequate, and our
axioms are not alwaysd explicitly stated and thus available for logical
analysis. Empirical validation/falsification works without detailed
analysis of the logic, but can only apply itself to that which can be
measured - repeatibly and independently.


If you are smart, you will soon recognize the need to develop a perception of science.

We could also choose to organize our libraries alphabetically by height
(in Imperial units), but there *ARE* more effective ways to accomplish the same task.


Analysis by exception - amazingly inefficient...


Science is expected to do what every *osophy, *ology, and *ism is
trying to do - help us understand how the universe works so that we can
better insure the survival of ourselves and our descendants.

The distinguishing feature of science is that it is *methodical* rather
than doctrinal. Science works using the scientific method - a cyclic
interaction between interpretation and experimentation. Science
unhesitatingly discards ideas that are shown to be inaccurate
descriptions of how the universe works, and requires that new ideas
provide some *testable statements* about how the universe works. By
throwing out all the straw men, science eventually closes in on the golden needles.


It is apparent to many of us scientists that the most important
elements of the 'historical tapestry' are those that tell us what
*doesn't* work, so we can avoid repeating those mistakes. The chief
value of tha historical tapestry is mainly as an error log.
<Gotta Go - boss is coming>

Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA

tadchem

Science is most decidedly NOT a democracy. It matters squat what "most people" think.


Certainly no empirical scientist would make such an assertion. Science
relies on falsifiability primarily through empirical testing;
mathematical falsifiability comes through rigorous logic.

We need science because sometimes our best logic is inadequate, and our
axioms are not alwaysd explicitly stated and thus available for logical
analysis. Empirical validation/falsification works without detailed
analysis of the logic, but can only apply itself to that which can be
measured - repeatibly and independently.


If you are smart, you will soon recognize the need to develop a perception of science.

We could also choose to organize our libraries alphabetically by height
(in Imperial units), but there *ARE* more effective ways to accomplish the same task.


Analysis by exception - amazingly inefficient...


Science is expected to do what every *osophy, *ology, and *ism is
trying to do - help us understand how the universe works so that we can
better insure the survival of ourselves and our descendants.

The distinguishing feature of science is that it is *methodical* rather
than doctrinal. Science works using the scientific method - a cyclic
interaction between interpretation and experimentation. Science
unhesitatingly discards ideas that are shown to be inaccurate
descriptions of how the universe works, and requires that new ideas
provide some *testable statements* about how the universe works. By
throwing out all the straw men, science eventually closes in on the golden needles.


It is apparent to many of us scientists that the most important
elements of the 'historical tapestry' are those that tell us what
*doesn't* work, so we can avoid repeating those mistakes. The chief
value of the historical tapestry is mainly as an error log.
<Gotta Go - boss is coming>

Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA

lesterdelzick

On 24 Jan 2005 10:21:56 -0800, "tadchem" <thomas.davidson@dla.mil> in


It matters squat what people who pay scientists' bills think? Elitist bullshit.


Yes, well, one day perhaps scientists can learn to put their minds in
gear sometime before, during, or after the reading process.

Please don't confuse your logic with our best logic.

Empirical contradiction doesn't seem to have done much for your logic.

Unlike yourself? What do you think I've just done, dufus?

Not in your case.


Your prose certainly is.


Thanks for the tutorial.

A cyclic interaction between empirical observation and ignorance.

Quite an anal analogy. How did science every get along without you?

I'd be fascinated to know exactly which elements of the historical
tapestry didn't work? Better ask your boss to avoid repeating the same
mistakes as those elements of the historical tapestry which didn't
work.

Regards - Lester

uncle al

Galilei, Galileo. "Discorsi e Dimostrazioni Matematiche Intorno a Due
Nuove Scienze" (Appresso gli Elsevirii, Leida: 1638)

Bullshit. Mathematics has no empirical falsification. Mathematics is not a science.


Idiot. Do you read what you write? Aristotle deduced grasshoppers
have four legs. Zick deduces he is competent. The value of empirical
falsification is obvious.

[snip 100 lines of crap]

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

neil w rickert

lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net (Lester Zick) writes:

And if asked what scientist are, they might say that scientists are
men who wear white lab coats.

Not useful.

Many mathematicians would disagree.


A solipsist such as yourself does not need science. You can just
make it up as you go along. The rest of us find it useful to deal
with the world that we find ourselves occupying.


Hume say that causation is constant conjunction.

You appear to be repeating Hume's most serious mistake.

mitch perkins

[snip]

Why so hostile? Seems ol' Tadchem took some time out of his workday
to consider some ideas with you. Didn't you want discussion?

Mitch

jason

Hey, who holds the heavenly taxonomy here? Catholic rank please.

Maybe you are right, that maths isn't science, whatever "science" means. Maybe
it is art, whatever that is. Maybe maths is just maths... but then again maybe
it isn't. Let the people Know the answers cast the first insult.

Some people say maths isn't a science because it is not empirical, as if
empiricism is the necessary condition to wear the reverent name "science". If
this is the case, Maths can be let into the faith. They proved the four colour
map problem by empirical means didn't they? How are primes found? Chaitin
suggests that maths needs to be quasi-empirical because they've run into the
limits of prediction.

lesterdelzick

On 24 Jan 2005 12:56:08 -0800, "Mitch Perkins"

I certainly welcome the discussion but maybe I missed the part where
he considers what I said.

Regards - Lester

lesterdelzick

Axioms, mathematical and otherwise, are subject to empirical
contradiction just as in common, ordinary, mundane science.

Regards - Lester