Friam

The Grand Design, Philosophy is Dead, and Hubris

Classic

List

Threaded

40 messages Options

Owen Densmore

The Grand Design, Philosophy is Dead, and Hubris

Administrator

I just looked at the book review for Hawking and Mlodinow's book The Grand Design:

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/indepth/45515

Although the book might be interesting, I was caught up by the statement Philosophy is Dead!

Quote: The Grand Design begins with a series of questions: "How can we understand the world in which we find ourselves?", "How does the universe behave?", "What is the nature of reality?", "Where did all this come from?" and "Did the universe need a creator?". As the book's authors, Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, point out, "almost all of us worry about [these questions] some of the time", and over the millennia, philosophers have worried about them a great deal. Yet after opening their book with an entertaining history of philosophers' takes on these fundamental questions, Hawking and Mlodinow go on to state provocatively that philosophy is dead: since philosophers have not kept up with the advances of modern science, it is now scientists who must address these large questions.

Odd.

-- Owen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Douglas Roberts-2

Re: The Grand Design, Philosophy is Dead, and Hubris

Refreshing.

On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 11:02 AM, Owen Densmore <[hidden email]> wrote:

I just looked at the book review for Hawking and Mlodinow's book The Grand Design:

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/indepth/45515

Although the book might be interesting, I was caught up by the statement Philosophy is Dead!

Quote: The Grand Design begins with a series of questions: "How can we understand the world in which we find ourselves?", "How does the universe behave?", "What is the nature of reality?", "Where did all this come from?" and "Did the universe need a creator?". As the book's authors, Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, point out, "almost all of us worry about [these questions] some of the time", and over the millennia, philosophers have worried about them a great deal. Yet after opening their book with an entertaining history of philosophers' takes on these fundamental questions, Hawking and Mlodinow go on to state provocatively that philosophy is dead: since philosophers have not kept up with the advances of modern science, it is now scientists who must address these large questions.

Odd.

-- Owen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

--
Doug Roberts
[hidden email]
[hidden email]

http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell

Marcos

Re: The Grand Design, Philosophy is Dead, and Hubris

> On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 11:02 AM, Owen Densmore <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> [...]philosophy is dead.
>>>
>> Odd.

On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 11:06 AM, Douglas Roberts <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Refreshing.

Haha, hilarious. In a dramatic twist of irony, the neo-theologians
will have to settle the argument...

mark

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Nick Thompson

Re: The Grand Design, Philosophy is Dead, and Hubris

In reply to this post by Owen Densmore

Isn’t that like saying that mathematics is dead because [some] mathematicians haven’t kept up with modern … um… astrophysics?

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Owen Densmore
Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2011 1:02 PM
To: Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: [FRIAM] The Grand Design, Philosophy is Dead, and Hubris

I just looked at the book review for Hawking and Mlodinow's book The Grand Design:

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/indepth/45515

Although the book might be interesting, I was caught up by the statement Philosophy is Dead!

Quote: The Grand Design begins with a series of questions: "How can we understand the world in which we find ourselves?", "How does the universe behave?", "What is the nature of reality?", "Where did all this come from?" and "Did the universe need a creator?". As the book's authors, Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, point out, "almost all of us worry about [these questions] some of the time", and over the millennia, philosophers have worried about them a great deal. Yet after opening their book with an entertaining history of philosophers' takes on these fundamental questions, Hawking and Mlodinow go on to state provocatively that philosophy is dead: since philosophers have not kept up with the advances of modern science, it is now scientists who must address these large questions.

Odd.

-- Owen

Prof David West

Re: The Grand Design, Philosophy is Dead, and Hubris

Einstein and Mach (and many others in the Physics community) used to say that the only people qualified to be philosophers were physicists. This is not so different and almost certainly shares the same premise that only Physicists really understood Reality.

Interestingly enough, when Quantum Theory became central to "understanding reality" the classical physicists basically banned philosophical type discourse from the profession in favor of 'don't think about what the equations mean, just shut up and calculate."

davew

On Thu, 07 Jul 2011 16:21 -0400, "Nicholas Thompson" <[hidden email]> wrote:

Isn’t that like saying that mathematics is dead because [some] mathematicians haven’t kept up with modern … um… astrophysics?

N

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Owen Densmore
Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2011 1:02 PM
To: Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: [FRIAM] The Grand Design, Philosophy is Dead, and Hubris

I just looked at the book review for Hawking and Mlodinow's book The Grand Design:

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/indepth/45515

Although the book might be interesting, I was caught up by the statement Philosophy is Dead!

Quote: The Grand Design begins with a series of questions: "How can we understand the world in which we find ourselves?", "How does the universe behave?", "What is the nature of reality?", "Where did all this come from?" and "Did the universe need a creator?". As the book's authors, Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, point out, "almost all of us worry about [these questions] some of the time", and over the millennia, philosophers have worried about them a great deal. Yet after opening their book with an entertaining history of philosophers' takes on these fundamental questions, Hawking and Mlodinow go on to state provocatively that philosophy is dead: since philosophers have not kept up with the advances of modern science, it is now scientists who must address these large questions.

Odd.

-- Owen
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Nick Thompson

Re: The Grand Design, Philosophy is Dead, and Hubris

To me, this is a very odd reading of what philosophers do. Like mathematics, philosophy is about the implications of [or premises necessary to] believing that something is true, not about whether it is true or not. A philosopher might say, “Geez, Dr. Mach, what are the premises that lead to your assertion?” It might (or might not) then be shown that the premises are absurd or that they include the conclusion. In either case, we might be less inclined to believe Mach because of a philosophical argument, but not because “the only people qualified to be philosophers were physicists” has any factual basis. If for instance, you believe that “physics is the study of matter and its relations” and “everything that is real consists of matter and its relations” then you pretty much have to think that physicists are the people you need to go to answer questions about anything that is real. But somehow, I don’t think the next time your dog gets sick you are going to take him to a physicist. This is the kind of contradiction that a philosopher can work over and a physicist will have little to contribute to, unless he also happens to be a philosopher.

Another way of saying this, perhaps, is to simply say that Einstein and Mach were engaging in arrogant twaddle.

Nick

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2011 4:29 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The Grand Design, Philosophy is Dead, and Hubris

davew

On Thu, 07 Jul 2011 16:21 -0400, "Nicholas Thompson" <[hidden email]> wrote:

Isn’t that like saying that mathematics is dead because [some] mathematicians haven’t kept up with modern … um… astrophysics?

N

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Owen Densmore
Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2011 1:02 PM
To: Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: [FRIAM] The Grand Design, Philosophy is Dead, and Hubris

I just looked at the book review for Hawking and Mlodinow's book The Grand Design:
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/indepth/45515

Although the book might be interesting, I was caught up by the statement Philosophy is Dead!

Quote: The Grand Design begins with a series of questions: "How can we understand the world in which we find ourselves?", "How does the universe behave?", "What is the nature of reality?", "Where did all this come from?" and "Did the universe need a creator?". As the book's authors, Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, point out, "almost all of us worry about [these questions] some of the time", and over the millennia, philosophers have worried about them a great deal. Yet after opening their book with an entertaining history of philosophers' takes on these fundamental questions, Hawking and Mlodinow go on to state provocatively that philosophy is dead: since philosophers have not kept up with the advances of modern science, it is now scientists who must address these large questions.

Odd.

-- Owen
 
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Bruce Sherwood

Re: The Grand Design, Philosophy is Dead, and Hubris

In reply to this post by Prof David West

I read the new book by Hawking and Mlodinow with interest but with
surprise at some facile ex cathedra statements including not only the
one about "philosophy is dead" but also some statements about physics
that seemed to come out of nowhere, stated with far more assurance
than seemed warranted. A quick check at Amazon of reader comments
shows that I'm not alone in thinking that there's less here than meets
the eye.

On the other hand, I can recommend highly the popular science book
"The Dance of the Photons" by Anton Zeilinger, the Austrian
experimental physicist who has been a major contributor to the new
understandings of quantum mechanics that have emerged in the last few
decades, made possible by highly sophisticated experimental techniques
(e.g. single photon experiments, delayed choice experiments, etc.). At
one point in the book he appropriately celebrates measurements that
quantitatively address certain aspects of reality that have long been
major issues in philosophy (and physics). These recent measurements
actually rule out some plausible philosophical stances with respect to
reality. It's intriguing that a physical measurement could do that.

Bruce

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

lrudolph

Re: The Grand Design, Philosophy is Dead, and Hubris

Bruce Sherwood writes, in relevant part:

> On the other hand, I can recommend highly the popular science book
> "The Dance of the Photons" by Anton Zeilinger
[...]
> At
> one point in the book he appropriately celebrates measurements that
> quantitatively address certain aspects of reality that have long been
> major issues in philosophy (and physics). These recent measurements
> actually rule out some plausible philosophical stances with respect to
> reality. It's intriguing that a physical measurement could do that.

Surely it's more than intriguing, it's impossible. Any measurement
is embedded in a theory (including, at a bare minimum, a theory about
how the device that performs the measurement functions); all that a
measurement can do (and it's quite enough, and sometimes--very likely
in this case--both intriguing and well worth celebrating), with
regard to a philosophical stance, is provide evidence (possibly,
as you seem to me to suggest here, categorical evidence) that the
philosophical stance S and the theory T in which the measurement
is embedded are incompatible (I want to say "incompossible" but I
don't think I have the proper credentials to use that word in
public).

That, at least, is what I think is the correct position to take,
based on what I've read (and come to believe) about the foundations
of measurement. But I'm neither a physicist nor a philosopher...

Lee Rudolph

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Bruce Sherwood

Re: The Grand Design, Philosophy is Dead, and Hubris

I'm a physicist, not a philosopher, and I know very little formal
philosophy, but I think in this case what Zeilinger claims is correct,
that measurements have ruled out certain "philosophical" viewpoints on
reality. The specific instance is roughly this (though I hasten to say
that I am not an expert on the new perspectives on quantum mechanics,
nor as I've said knowledgeable in philosophy):

A possible view of microscopic reality is that some particles "have" a
state, only probabilistically determined to be sure, but they have
some state, and an observation determines what that (probabilistically
determined) state is. This view of reality is truly ruled out by
recent experiments, which show that the particles do NOT "have" a
state to be measured, it really really is the case that they take on a
state in the process of measurement.

This is highly counterintuitive. It's the part of quantum mechanics
that Einstein could not accept. The famous Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen
(EPR) paper of the 1930s proved that it you took quantum mechanics
seriously you would lead to absurd predictions, including such things
as a system of particles not already being in a state before being
observed. Since the predictions are absurd, EPR concluded that the
theory of quantum mechanics must be imcomplete.

It was many years before experimenters were able to carry out
experiments to explore these absurdities. When they did, they found
that the absurd predictions of quantum mechanics are in fact what
happens. It is a delicious irony that yet another contribution that
Einstein made to the development of quantum mechanics was to prove
that quantum mechanics cannot be right, thereby stimulating people to
do the experiments to investigate the "absurdities".

Bruce

P.S. I'm now reading an excellent history of the development of
quantum mechanics, "The Quantum Story" by Jim Baggott. Much of this is
familiar, but even one of the tales previously unknown to me was worth
the price of admission (only $10 in Kindle edition). When Bohr created
the Bohr model of the hydrogen atom, in the early 1910s, before
publishing he discussed his ideas with Rutherford. Rutherford, who
cultivated an aw-shucks New Zealand country boy image but who was very
smart, asked, "But if you say that the energy state can drop one, or
two, or three levels, what determines which energy change the atom
experiences? What about causality?"

On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 4:21 PM, <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Bruce Sherwood writes, in relevant part:
>
>> On the other hand, I can recommend highly the popular science book
>> "The Dance of the Photons" by Anton Zeilinger
> [...]
>> At
>> one point in the book he appropriately celebrates measurements that
>> quantitatively address certain aspects of reality that have long been
>> major issues in philosophy (and physics). These recent measurements
>> actually rule out some plausible philosophical stances with respect to
>> reality. It's intriguing that a physical measurement could do that.
>
> Surely it's more than intriguing, it's impossible. Any measurement
> is embedded in a theory (including, at a bare minimum, a theory about
> how the device that performs the measurement functions); all that a
> measurement can do (and it's quite enough, and sometimes--very likely
> in this case--both intriguing and well worth celebrating), with
> regard to a philosophical stance, is provide evidence (possibly,
> as you seem to me to suggest here, categorical evidence) that the
> philosophical stance S and the theory T in which the measurement
> is embedded are incompatible (I want to say "incompossible" but I
> don't think I have the proper credentials to use that word in
> public).
>
> That, at least, is what I think is the correct position to take,
> based on what I've read (and come to believe) about the foundations
> of measurement. But I'm neither a physicist nor a philosopher...
>
> Lee Rudolph

glen ep ropella

Re: The Grand Design, Philosophy is Dead, and Hubris

In reply to this post by lrudolph

[hidden email] wrote at 07/07/2011 03:21 PM:
> all that a
> measurement can do (and it's quite enough, and sometimes--very likely
> in this case--both intriguing and well worth celebrating), with
> regard to a philosophical stance, is provide evidence (possibly,
> as you seem to me to suggest here, categorical evidence) that the
> philosophical stance S and the theory T in which the measurement
> is embedded are incompatible

You have to be careful saying things like that on this list, though,
because it's tantamount to giving philosophical stances a stature on par
with scientific theories. OMG!

Personally, I think philosophy is on par with science. But they are in
two different categories. Science is limited to negation, the
demonstration that some sentence (or class of sentences) does not hold
(here, now, anywhere, anywhen). Philosophy is limited to inference, the
derivation of sentences from others (ab-, in-, or de-). Both are
necessary for any attempt at knowledge.

Perhaps Hawking and Mlodinow meant to say that "metaphysics is dead",
which would be a much more appropriate assertion for people who study
the physical stories that are steadily replacing our creation myths.

--
glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://tempusdictum.com

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Owen Densmore

Re: The Grand Design, Philosophy is Dead, and Hubris

Administrator

Personally, I think philosophy is on par with science.

Good lord, how? Is it as empirical? Does it create as provably valid models? Or is it simply as worthy an area of study as science?

I think the Par you are considering would not include your going to a philosopher for medical treatment, right?

But they are in
two different categories. Science is limited to negation, the
demonstration that some sentence (or class of sentences) does not hold
(here, now, anywhere, anywhen).

Er, how does Newton deal with negation? Isn't a clear set of equations saying what *will* happen? I mean of course one can say, It Is Not The Case That F=ma Is Not True, but really, just how can we think of science limited to negation?

Don't get me wrong, I have great respect for all the rich topics of investigation we pursue, philosophy included. However, I don't see that they are on par in any way other than you can study it.

-- Owen

glen ep ropella

Re: The Grand Design, Philosophy is Dead, and Hubris

Owen Densmore wrote at 07/07/2011 06:39 PM:
> Good lord, how? Is it as empirical? Does it create as provably valid
> models? Or is it simply as worthy an area of study as science?

Well, as I said, philosophy is engaged with inference and science is
not. Hence, you must use philosophy in order to develop a scientific
theory. Vice versa, science is engaged with proving your theories
false. You can't pursue science without philosophy and you can't pursue
philosophy without science.

> I think the Par you are considering would not include your going to a
> philosopher for medical treatment, right?

Yes, actually. Effective diagnosis requires philosophy. Similarly,
every plumber I've ever paid has a "philosophy of plumbing". Every
landscaper I've ever met has a philosophy of landscaping. Etc. So, the
simple answer is, yes. Further, I would NOT go to a doctor who had no
philosophy (assuming such a beast exists).

The unfortunate part of this is that too many people engage in
philosophy with no science to eliminate their wacko theories.

> Er, how does Newton deal with negation? Isn't a clear set of equations
> saying what *will* happen? I mean of course one can say, It Is Not The
> Case That F=ma Is Not True, but really, just how can we think of science
> limited to negation?

Science is rooted in testability and falsification. And even if you're
not a fan of Popper, you should still be able to admit that no
untestable, unfalsifiable theory is scientific. So, science _at_least_
requires falsification. Many of Newton's theories were falsifiable, but
not falsified. Of course, it's also true that many of Newton's theories
were unfalsifiable and unfalsified. So, some of what Newton did was
scientific and some was not, just like the rest of us.

> Don't get me wrong, I have great respect for all the rich topics of
> investigation we pursue, philosophy included. However, I don't see that
> they are on par in any way other than you can study it.

You may well have different conceptions of what philosophy is ... and
what science is. That's fine. But _I_ think they are equally valuable,
equally useful, and equally "real". In pretty much every quantification
I can think of, they are on par ... oh, except that most people don't do
science. Hence, we see a bit of a back-lash amongst the scientists
bemoaning that ... hence silly statements like "philosophy is dead".

--
glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://tempusdictum.com

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

glen ep ropella

Re: The Grand Design, Philosophy is Dead, and Hubris

glen e. p. ropella wrote at 07/07/2011 07:03 PM:
> Vice versa, science is engaged with proving your theories
> false. You can't pursue science without philosophy and you can't pursue
> philosophy without science.

Sorry, mea culpa. You can _pursue_ philosophy without science... but
you'd suck at it. ;-) Good philosophers are also scientists and vice
versa. I should not have used the word "pursue".

--
glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://tempusdictum.com

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Victoria Hughes

Re: The Grand Design, Philosophy is Dead, and Hubris

In reply to this post by glen ep ropella

http://www.xefer.com/2011/05/wikipedia

On Jul 7, 2011, at 8:03 PM, glen e. p. ropella wrote:

>
> Owen Densmore wrote at 07/07/2011 06:39 PM:
>> Good lord, how? Is it as empirical? Does it create as provably
>> valid
>> models? Or is it simply as worthy an area of study as science?
>
> Well, as I said, philosophy is engaged with inference and science is
> not. Hence, you must use philosophy in order to develop a scientific
> theory. Vice versa, science is engaged with proving your theories
> false. You can't pursue science without philosophy and you can't
> pursue
> philosophy without science.
>
>> I think the Par you are considering would not include your going to a
>> philosopher for medical treatment, right?
>
> Yes, actually. Effective diagnosis requires philosophy. Similarly,
> every plumber I've ever paid has a "philosophy of plumbing". Every
> landscaper I've ever met has a philosophy of landscaping. Etc. So,
> the
> simple answer is, yes. Further, I would NOT go to a doctor who had no
> philosophy (assuming such a beast exists).
>
> The unfortunate part of this is that too many people engage in
> philosophy with no science to eliminate their wacko theories.
>
>> Er, how does Newton deal with negation? Isn't a clear set of
>> equations
>> saying what *will* happen? I mean of course one can say, It Is Not
>> The
>> Case That F=ma Is Not True, but really, just how can we think of
>> science
>> limited to negation?
>
> Science is rooted in testability and falsification. And even if
> you're
> not a fan of Popper, you should still be able to admit that no
> untestable, unfalsifiable theory is scientific. So, science
> _at_least_
> requires falsification. Many of Newton's theories were falsifiable,
> but
> not falsified. Of course, it's also true that many of Newton's
> theories
> were unfalsifiable and unfalsified. So, some of what Newton did was
> scientific and some was not, just like the rest of us.
>
>> Don't get me wrong, I have great respect for all the rich topics of
>> investigation we pursue, philosophy included. However, I don't see
>> that
>> they are on par in any way other than you can study it.
>
> You may well have different conceptions of what philosophy is ... and
> what science is. That's fine. But _I_ think they are equally
> valuable,
> equally useful, and equally "real". In pretty much every
> quantification
> I can think of, they are on par ... oh, except that most people
> don't do
> science. Hence, we see a bit of a back-lash amongst the scientists
> bemoaning that ... hence silly statements like "philosophy is dead".
>
> --
> glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://tempusdictum.com
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>

Bruce Sherwood

Re: The Grand Design, Philosophy is Dead, and Hubris

The situation described by Zeilinger is indeed a good example of the
ability of science to negate possible models. One can't prove that a
model is "correct" but one can often prove that a model is wrong. That
is, its predictions and explanations ("postdictions") are in large
disagreement with observations. What I understand Zeilinger to be
saying is that in the new wave of deep experimental probes of quantum
mechanics theory, the view that a bunch of particles is already in
some state before the observation, and that the observation simply
determines which state the particles were in at the time of the
observation, is false. That is not how the world behaves, despite our
notions (and those of Einstein) that "obviously" the system had to be
in the state we find it in, before we made the measurement.

However, I'll take the opportunity to point out that one occasionally
encounters an overly simplistic view of the power of negation in
science, the view that "one experiment is sufficient to overturn a
theory." It's more complicated than that. There's a particularly nice
example in a paper by Feynman and Gell-Mann in the late 1950s. In
their paper they proposed a particular structure for the weak
interactions (which had recently been shown not to conserve "parity"
-- handedness), called "V-A", which implied maximal violation of the
principle of conservation of parity. In their paper they reviewed all
the existing experiments that were relevant tests of their theory. One
after another they said essentially, "This experiment contradicts our
theory, and we think the experiment is wrong." They were correct. I
believe the problem was that multiple scattering of particles in thick
pieces of material washed out the relevant effects. Eventually better
experiments were performed, and V-A was confirmed as a good
description of the weak interaction.

For both negation AND for gathering evidence in support of a theory,
it is a complex web of diverse observations that is required to reject
or support a theory.

I'll give an example concerning negation in our own college-level
intro physics curriculum. We discuss spark formation in air. An
obvious model is that you have to apply a big enough electric field to
yank electrons out of air molecules in order to form a conducting
plasma of positive ions and free (unbound) electrons ("field
ionization"). It is easy to calculate the approximate electric field
value required to ionize an air molecule, by considering how large is
the electric field of the rest of an atom on an outer electron, and it
is about 1e11 volts/meter. However, the observed threshold for spark
formation is about 3e6 volts/meter. At first, students are inclined to
look for various corrections to the model, but eventually they come to
agree that you really can't nickel and dime a model into agreement
against a difference of 3e4; the model itself must simply be wrong.

A model that works well starts with the observation that there are
always a few free electrons in the air, because muons (heavy
electrons), created in impacts of high-energy cosmic-ray protons with
the nuclei in air molecules, penetrate the atmosphere and eject
electrons from air molecules along the muon's path. The critical
electric field only needs to accelerate a free electron sufficiently
in one mean free path to have enough kinetic energy to knock an
electron out of an air molecule. Now you have 2 free electrons, then
4, 8, 16, .... a chain reaction. In this model one estimates a
threshold value of electric field in rather good agreement with the
observed 3e6 volts/meter, which looks promising.

Then comes the kicker. The first model (field ionization) predicts
that the density of the air doesn't matter, since the effect is on
individual atoms. The second model (chain reaction) predicts that if
you double the air density the mean free path of electrons is cut in
half, so the energy imparted by the applied electric field in one mean
free path is cut in half, so the kinetic energy of the electron when
it hits a molecule is cut in half, so you need twice the applied field
strength in order to make the chain reaction happen. When you measure
the threshold field for different air densities, you find that it is
in fact proportional to the density, in agreement with the chain
reaction model and in disagreement with the field ionization model (in
fact, high-density gas is sometimes used as an insulator). One
characteristic of a good model is that it explains/predicts more
aspects of a phenomenon than those for which it was originally
developed.

Bruce

P.S. I'll advertise that on my home page (www4.ncsu.edu/~basherwo)
there's a video of a presentation I made to Santa Fe city government
staff on "Electric Fields, Cell Towers, and Wi-Fi", motivated by my
observations in public meetings that few people, even many with
technical backgrounds, have much conception of what an electric or
magnetic field is.

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

QEF@aol.com

Re: The Grand Design, Philosophy is Dead, and Hubris

In reply to this post by Victoria Hughes

Greetings, all --

And then there's this:

http://www.xkcd.com/435/

- Claiborne -

-----Original Message-----
From: Victoria Hughes <[hidden email]>
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Sent: Thu, Jul 7, 2011 11:46 pm
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The Grand Design, Philosophy is Dead, and Hubris

http://www.xefer.com/2011/05/wikipedia

On Jul 7, 2011, at 8:03 PM, glen e. p. ropella wrote:

>
> Owen Densmore wrote at 07/07/2011 06:39 PM:
>> Good lord, how? Is it as empirical? Does it create as provably >> valid
>> models? Or is it simply as worthy an area of study as science?
>
> Well, as I said, philosophy is engaged with inference and science is
> not. Hence, you must use philosophy in order to develop a scientific
> theory. Vice versa, science is engaged with proving your theories
> false. You can't pursue science without philosophy and you can't > pursue
> philosophy without science.
>
>> I think the Par you are considering would not include your going to a
>> philosopher for medical treatment, right?
>
> Yes, actually. Effective diagnosis requires philosophy. Similarly,
> every plumber I've ever paid has a "philosophy of plumbing". Every
> landscaper I've ever met has a philosophy of landscaping. Etc. So, > the
> simple answer is, yes. Further, I would NOT go to a doctor who had no
> philosophy (assuming such a beast exists).
>
> The unfortunate part of this is that too many people engage in
> philosophy with no science to eliminate their wacko theories.
>
>> Er, how does Newton deal with negation? Isn't a clear set of >> equations
>> saying what *will* happen? I mean of course one can say, It Is Not >> The
>> Case That F=ma Is Not True, but really, just how can we think of >> science
>> limited to negation?
>
> Science is rooted in testability and falsification. And even if > you're
> not a fan of Popper, you should still be able to admit that no
> untestable, unfalsifiable theory is scientific. So, science > _at_least_
> requires falsification. Many of Newton's theories were falsifiable, > but
> not falsified. Of course, it's also true that many of Newton's > theories
> were unfalsifiable and unfalsified. So, some of what Newton did was
> scientific and some was not, just like the rest of us.
>
>> Don't get me wrong, I have great respect for all the rich topics of
>> investigation we pursue, philosophy included. However, I don't see >> that
>> they are on par in any way other than you can study it.
>
> You may well have different conceptions of what philosophy is ... and
> what science is. That's fine. But _I_ think they are equally > valuable,
> equally useful, and equally "real". In pretty much every > quantification
> I can think of, they are on par ... oh, except that most people > don't do
> science. Hence, we see a bit of a back-lash amongst the scientists
> bemoaning that ... hence silly statements like "philosophy is dead".
>
> --> glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://tempusdictum.com
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Nick Thompson

Re: The Grand Design, Philosophy is Dead, and Hubris

In reply to this post by Owen Densmore

Owen,

Please. I am confused. What is it that you think philosophers do?

Nick

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Owen Densmore
Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2011 9:40 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The Grand Design, Philosophy is Dead, and Hubris

Personally, I think philosophy is on par with science.

Good lord, how? Is it as empirical? Does it create as provably valid models? Or is it simply as worthy an area of study as science?

I think the Par you are considering would not include your going to a philosopher for medical treatment, right?

But they are in
two different categories. Science is limited to negation, the
demonstration that some sentence (or class of sentences) does not hold
(here, now, anywhere, anywhen).

Don't get me wrong, I have great respect for all the rich topics of investigation we pursue, philosophy included. However, I don't see that they are on par in any way other than you can study it.

-- Owen

lrudolph

Re: The Grand Design, Philosophy is Dead, and Hubris

In reply to this post by Bruce Sherwood

> P.S. I'll advertise that on my home page (www4.ncsu.edu/~basherwo)

I have nothing substantive to add, I just want to express my joy
at being prompted to imagine an alternative universe in which
one contributor to this list is named Basher Wo.

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Steve Smith

Re: The Grand Design, Philosophy is Dead, and Hubris

>> P.S. I'll advertise that on my home page (www4.ncsu.edu/~basherwo)
> I have nothing substantive to add, I just want to express my joy
> at being prompted to imagine an alternative universe in which
> one contributor to this list is named Basher Wo.
I live in two alternative universii (two mail lists which are very
international) where the names are fantastical... my latest, greatest
name from there is "Snoze Pa"...

Snoze, are you on this list too?

- Sneeze Smurf

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Douglas Roberts-2

Re: The Grand Design, Philosophy is Dead, and Hubris

I'd be interested in hearing what others on this list think that modern-day philosophers do. I'd express my opinion now, but I'm afraid it would taint the no-doubt rich, insightful responses that I'm sure will follow.

But just to be clear, the question is: what to modern-day philosophers do? Not: what did philosophers do back in the days before science had progressed to it's present state.

--
Doug Roberts
[hidden email]
[hidden email]

http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell