[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Pluralism in Science: A Call to Action
I do not know that we need a new philosophy (not qualified to judge about that). However, having said that I agree with most of the writing (the excerpt from H Chang's book). 'There are always two possibilities' is a rule I think is a simpler way of accepting something similar to what you propose. If there always are two possibilities then there is an infinitive number of possibilities - just they can only be overcome a pair at a time. I did read Peter Gluck's blog this morning (as I do most mornings), he is a smart guy so he also think that the solution to LENR need better organization (leadership, passion, openness to different ways to find a solution). I think Vortex has several sharp minds with solutions that might be correct. The problem is that there is no openness to verify, THE ONE solution and then take the next step. I understand that there is a desire to be the one providing the right theory or to make a whole lot of money from creating the commercial LENR. That is normal and fine with me. As Peter suggested if we can find a person willing to fund the research, then we can create an organization with the right composition of intelligence and knowledge. The idea is not new. I know at least one website that propose to create this organization, I think that most things has its time and that this is the right time to create this organization. The progress indicated by A. Rossi and IH should make someone with a passion and deep pockets intrigued and willing to take a calculated chance. Even if AR and IH are well ahead the gap can be covered in a very short time. In addition the market place will easily include many players. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM) On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 1:28 PM, H Veeder wrote: > From off list > > > > Dear H. Veeder, > > > > I think the link I provide below is well suited to your Vortex thread and > is rather self-explanatory. > > > Perhaps you would post it there, as a reply (received privately). > > > http://philosophypeterkinane.com/ > > > Regards, > > > Peter Kinane > > On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 1:17 PM, H Veeder wrote: > >> The post b >> elow >> includes >> part A of chapter 5 from the book >> >> >> >> Is Water H2O? Evidence, Realism and Pluralism >> >> by >> Hasok Chang >> , 2012. (available on amazon.com) >> >> >> >> link to complete C >> hapter 5: >> >> >> >> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxxczzEYA5C5aHRQUTdoN3o2d3c/view?usp=sharing >> >> >> Chapter 5. Pluralism in Science >> : A Call to Action >> >> >> Part A. Can Science be Pluralistic? >> Plurality: from acceptance to celebration >> Monism and pluralism >> Why pluralism is not relativism >> Is pluralism paralyzing? >> Can we afford it all? >> >> >> Plurality >> : from acceptance to celebration >> >> >> >> I became a pluralist about science because I could not honestly >> >> >> convince myself that the phlogiston theory was simply wrong — or even >> >> >> genuinely inferior to Lavoisier’s oxygen-based chemical theory. OK, >> >> >> that is an oversimplification, but I really was pulled into a pluralist >> way of >> >> >> thinking about science by a set of historical episodes in which discarded >> >> >> past theories turned out not to be obviously absurd on a closer look. >> >> >> More positively, in the course of doing the research for this book, I >> >> >> became convinced that there was something worth preserving in >> >> >> Priestley’s phlogiston, in Ritter’s elementary water, in Dalton’s HO >> >> >> formula for water, and so on without denying the merits of the new ideas >> >> >> that came to replace them. My previous work had already prepared me >> >> >> in this direction, for example when I realized that the caloric theory of >> >> >> heat had much to recommend it, and even some merits that made it >> >> >> superior to the early kinetic theories of heat for many decades until the >> >> >> middle of the 19th century. Of course it would be unwise to make >> >> >> generalizations from a few particular studies, but they were too >> >> >> suggestive to ignore. Like an itch demanding a scratch, they made a >> >> >> persistent call for a re-examination of some fundamental assumptions >> >> >> about the nature of science that were deeply ingrained into my own >> >> >> thinking. They made me seriously call into question the common >> >> >> intuition that there can only be one right answer to a scientific >> question, >> >> >> and that once science has answered a question definitively its verdict >> >> >> was final. >> >> >> >>
[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Pluralism in Science: A Call to Action
>From off list Dear H. Veeder, I think the link I provide below is well suited to your Vortex thread and is rather self-explanatory. Perhaps you would post it there, as a reply (received privately). http://philosophypeterkinane.com/ Regards, Peter Kinane On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 1:17 PM, H Veeder wrote: > The post b > elow > includes > part A of chapter 5 from the book > > > > Is Water H2O? Evidence, Realism and Pluralism > > by > Hasok Chang > , 2012. (available on amazon.com) > > > > link to complete C > hapter 5: > > > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxxczzEYA5C5aHRQUTdoN3o2d3c/view?usp=sharing > > > Chapter 5. Pluralism in Science > : A Call to Action > > > Part A. Can Science be Pluralistic? > Plurality: from acceptance to celebration > Monism and pluralism > Why pluralism is not relativism > Is pluralism paralyzing? > Can we afford it all? > > > Plurality > : from acceptance to celebration > > > > I became a pluralist about science because I could not honestly > > > convince myself that the phlogiston theory was simply wrong — or even > > > genuinely inferior to Lavoisier’s oxygen-based chemical theory. OK, > > > that is an oversimplification, but I really was pulled into a pluralist > way of > > > thinking about science by a set of historical episodes in which discarded > > > past theories turned out not to be obviously absurd on a closer look. > > > More positively, in the course of doing the research for this book, I > > > became convinced that there was something worth preserving in > > > Priestley’s phlogiston, in Ritter’s elementary water, in Dalton’s HO > > > formula for water, and so on without denying the merits of the new ideas > > > that came to replace them. My previous work had already prepared me > > > in this direction, for example when I realized that the caloric theory of > > > heat had much to recommend it, and even some merits that made it > > > superior to the early kinetic theories of heat for many decades until the > > > middle of the 19th century. Of course it would be unwise to make > > > generalizations from a few particular studies, but they were too > > > suggestive to ignore. Like an itch demanding a scratch, they made a > > > persistent call for a re-examination of some fundamental assumptions > > > about the nature of science that were deeply ingrained into my own > > > thinking. They made me seriously call into question the common > > > intuition that there can only be one right answer to a scientific > question, > > > and that once science has answered a question definitively its verdict > > > was final. > > > >
[Vo]:Pluralism in Science: A Call to Action
The post b elow includes part A of chapter 5 from the book Is Water H2O? Evidence, Realism and Pluralism by Hasok Chang , 2012. (available on amazon.com) link to complete C hapter 5: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxxczzEYA5C5aHRQUTdoN3o2d3c/view?usp=sharing Chapter 5. Pluralism in Science : A Call to Action Part A. Can Science be Pluralistic? Plurality: from acceptance to celebration Monism and pluralism Why pluralism is not relativism Is pluralism paralyzing? Can we afford it all? Plurality : from acceptance to celebration I became a pluralist about science because I could not honestly convince myself that the phlogiston theory was simply wrong — or even genuinely inferior to Lavoisier’s oxygen-based chemical theory. OK, that is an oversimplification, but I really was pulled into a pluralist way of thinking about science by a set of historical episodes in which discarded past theories turned out not to be obviously absurd on a closer look. More positively, in the course of doing the research for this book, I became convinced that there was something worth preserving in Priestley’s phlogiston, in Ritter’s elementary water, in Dalton’s HO formula for water, and so on without denying the merits of the new ideas that came to replace them. My previous work had already prepared me in this direction, for example when I realized that the caloric theory of heat had much to recommend it, and even some merits that made it superior to the early kinetic theories of heat for many decades until the middle of the 19th century. Of course it would be unwise to make generalizations from a few particular studies, but they were too suggestive to ignore. Like an itch demanding a scratch, they made a persistent call for a re-examination of some fundamental assumptions about the nature of science that were deeply ingrained into my own thinking. They made me seriously call into question the common intuition that there can only be one right answer to a scientific question, and that once science has answered a question definitively its verdict was final. All along in earlier chapters I have made various hints at a pluralism concerning science, indicating various ways in which it seemed beneficial for science to maintain multiple approaches to the same area of study. Now it is time to consolidate those hints into a coherent and systematic statement of a philosophical position. In this chapter I advance a case for pluralism based on general and abstract arguments, supported by reference to as many cases as I can invoke and also buttressed by the arguments concerning scientific realism made in Chapter 4. As in earlier chapters, there will be three parts. Part A motivates and states the general themes in a way that is accessible to non-specialists; Part B contains a systematic and thorough argument for my position; Part C addresses specific specialist or in- depth questions that would have interrupted the flow of thought in Part A As indicated above, I began with a grudging fascination with plurality in science. But the longer I examined this troublesome plurality, the more I became positively excited about it. The historical episodes that I have presented in Chapter 2 and Chapter 3 exhibit the presence of multiple systems that were operating simultaneously in respectable and exciting areas of science (electrochemistry and atomic chemistry). My re-examination of the Chemical Revolution in Chapter 1 suggests that a field of science seemingly ruled by one dominant system of practice may actually embody much more plurality than meets the eye, and that it may be beneficial to increase what plurality there is. Phlogiston-based chemistry did not in fact disappear very easily, and it would have been beneficial to let it survive even longer than it did. Similar reflections arising from Chapters 2 and 3 suggest that there is nothing sacrosanct or inevitable about the notion that water is H2O. These thoughts are not crazy, and they create a refreshing and provocative view on how scientific work is, could be, and should be conducted. In the process of thinking through these cases, I began to see general reasons for which plurality would be necessary and beneficial in science. I will give a systematic presentation of these reasons in Part B of this chapter, but here are some intuitive highlights with some suggestive metaphors. The most fundamental motivation for pluralism is humility: we are limited beings trying to understand and engage with an external reality that seems vastly complex, apparently inexhaustible, and ultimately unpredictable. If we are not likely to find the one perfect system of science, it makes sense to foster multiple ones, each of which will have its own unique strengths. If we are like the proverbial blind people feeling the elephant, more of us should be rounde
