Re: [Fis] Social constructivism

[Stanley N Salthe]

In my last posting for the week, I Reply to Hans --


QBism does not change any of the impressive successes of quantum mechanics.
 It simply says that quantum mechanics is a very complex, abstract encoding
of the experiences of generations of scientists interacting with atomic
systems.


S: These generations of “scientists” are a subsystem of society as a
whole.  They influence each other via language and other social
constructions, including theories and machines.  Through them, it is
society that observes the micro activities occurring with the experimental
machinery.  ‘Proof’? -- each individual could be replaced by another using
the same social tools (including education).


It disenfranchises a physicist from knowing what an electron spin, for
example, REALLY is, while celebrating her ability to predict correctly,
albeit probabilistically, what to expect in the next experiment. She and
her predecessors have created an abstract model, and validated it by appeal
to experiments, without appeal to any of the other considerations listed
above


S: So QM, via QBism, is meaningless!  Is this an achievement? -- to render
meaningless the activities within the socially-constructed machinery guided
by the socially-constructed theories?



In conversation with Joseph Brenner and others I have used the rainbow as a
metaphor. The rainbow is a phenomenon that everyone experiences slightly
differently, but that we all agree on.


S: I would say that it is a biologically-constructed epiphenomenon.


The scientific model that "explains" it is very complicated and highly
abstract.  Is the rainbow "real"?  It certainly does not exist when nobody
is looking.  It is, in the end, a personal experience.  For me the
experience is enhanced considerably by my understanding of the scientific
model of it, because it allows me to look for and discover details I had
never noticed, but I would not presume to say I know what YOUR experience
of it is.  Maybe you are thinking of Iris or Noah, and feeling awe or
curiosity, and remarking on its (apparently) immense size and variable
brightness.


S: But it’s physical interpretation, from the QBist perspective, is of no
interest as such.



QBism suggests that we look at the world as consisting of rainbows -- an
ensemble of complex phenomena about which we know some things, but whose
essences we cannot capture.  The QBist says: I don't know what the world
is.  All I know is what I experience in my interactions with the world, as
they are illuminated and modified by what I have learned from other people,

past and present, who have had similar experiences and encoded them in the
succinct language of mathematics.


S: That is, our experiences are socially conditioned biological
constructs.  In this view physics becomes the theoretical basis for
constructing the QM machinery, which will display an epiphenomenon.


STAN



Hans


On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 6:52 PM, Hans von Baeyer wrote:

> Stan asks: Would we be justified in viewing QBism the latest venture of
> [social] constructivism?
>
> WOW, I sure hope not!  While it is true that there are fads in science,
> and that the direction of research is influenced to some degree by the
> society that funds it and consumes its fruits, I think that the underlying
> methodology distinguishes socially constructed models of reality from
> scientific ones.  Social constructions use arguments that play no role in
> any account of the scientific method as it applies to the Natural Sciences
> (as opposed to the Social Sciences).
>
> Some examples: Deutsche Physik referred to the ethnicity of scientists,
> Lysenkoism adduced ideological goals; Creationism appeals to scripture;
> Feminist Science Studies consider the gender of scientists.
>
> QBism does not change any of the impressive successes of quantum
> mechanics.  It simply says that quantum mechanics is a very complex,
> abstract encoding of the experiences of generations of scientists
> interacting with atomic systems. It disenfranchises a physicist from
> knowing what an electron spin, for example, REALLY is, while celebrating
> her ability to predict correctly, albeit probabilistically, what to expect
> in the next experiment. She and her predecessors have created an abstract
> model, and validated it by appeal to experiments, without appeal to any of
> the other considerations listed above.
>
> In conversation with Joseph Brenner and others I have used the rainbow as
> a metaphor. The rainbow is a phenomenon that everyone experiences slightly
> differently, but that we all agree on. The scientific model that "explains"
> it is very complicated and highly abstract.  Is the rainbow "real"?  It
> certainly does not exist when nobody is looking.  It is, in the end, a
> personal experience.  For me the experience is enhanced considerably by my
> understanding of the scientific model of it, because it allows me to look
> for and discover details I had never noticed, but I would not presume to
> say I kno

Re: [Fis] Social constructivism

[Dino Buzzetti]

Dear Hans,
Your rainbow metaphor is illuminating, but in my opinion it does
not entail assuming a subjectivist Bayesian point of view.  Quantum
mechanics, as far as I understand it, assumes the interaction between
the observer and the observed.  This implies giving up positing the
distinction between subject and object as an absolute one and
trying to avoid falling back in the "classical" paradigm, which is
grounded precisely on that distinction.  That distinction is not an
ontological one, but it arises only in our representations, such as
measurement and experiment.  The epistemological challenge is
to find a consistent ontological model accounting for superposition
and indeterminacy and that is what, in my opinion, quantum
mechanics strives to do, without falling back consciously or
inadvertently in the old paradigm—we are not determinists just
because we cannot know...-dino


On 8 January 2014 00:52, Hans von Baeyer  wrote:

> Stan asks: Would we be justified in viewing QBism the latest venture of
> [social] constructivism?
>
> WOW, I sure hope not!  While it is true that there are fads in science,
> and that the direction of research is influenced to some degree by the
> society that funds it and consumes its fruits, I think that the underlying
> methodology distinguishes socially constructed models of reality from
> scientific ones.  Social constructions use arguments that play no role in
> any account of the scientific method as it applies to the Natural Sciences
> (as opposed to the Social Sciences).
>
> Some examples: Deutsche Physik referred to the ethnicity of scientists,
> Lysenkoism adduced ideological goals; Creationism appeals to scripture;
> Feminist Science Studies consider the gender of scientists.
>
> QBism does not change any of the impressive successes of quantum
> mechanics.  It simply says that quantum mechanics is a very complex,
> abstract encoding of the experiences of generations of scientists
> interacting with atomic systems. It disenfranchises a physicist from
> knowing what an electron spin, for example, REALLY is, while celebrating
> her ability to predict correctly, albeit probabilistically, what to expect
> in the next experiment. She and her predecessors have created an abstract
> model, and validated it by appeal to experiments, without appeal to any of
> the other considerations listed above.
>
> In conversation with Joseph Brenner and others I have used the rainbow as
> a metaphor. The rainbow is a phenomenon that everyone experiences slightly
> differently, but that we all agree on. The scientific model that "explains"
> it is very complicated and highly abstract.  Is the rainbow "real"?  It
> certainly does not exist when nobody is looking.  It is, in the end, a
> personal experience.  For me the experience is enhanced considerably by my
> understanding of the scientific model of it, because it allows me to look
> for and discover details I had never noticed, but I would not presume to
> say I know what YOUR experience of it is.  Maybe you are thinking of Iris
> or Noah, and feeling awe or curiosity, and remarking on its (apparently)
> immense size and variable brightness.
>
> QBism suggests that we look at the world as consisting of rainbows -- an
> ensemble of complex phenomena about which we know some things, but whose
> essences we cannot capture.  The QBist says: I don't know what the world
> is.  All I know is what I experience in my interactions with the world, as
> they are illuminated and modified by what I have learned from other people,
> past and present, who have had similar experiences and encoded them in the
> succinct language of mathematics.
>
> Hans
>
> ___
> fis mailing list
> fis@listas.unizar.es
> https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>
>


-- 
Dino Buzzetti formerly
Department of Philosophy University of Bologna
​​
currently
Fondazione per le Scienze Religiose Giovanni XXIII
​
via san Vitale, 114 I-40125 Bologna BO
e-mail: dino.buzze...@gmail.com
   buzze...@fscire.it
web: http://web.dfc.unibo.it/buzzetti/
___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

Re: [Fis] Social constructivism

[Loet Leydesdorff]

Dear colleagues,

 

Perhaps, the "rainbow" argument is opening a window to constructivism. The
definitions of poverty or IQ, for example, guide us in our perceptions of
reality and the possibilities of measurement. One can measure IQ because the
concept is discursively constructed and codified. The nature of the
codification process may be different among the sciences (e.g., between
social and natural sciences), but not the need to construct discursively and
to codify scholarly communication in processes of validation.

 

Best wishes, 

Loet

 

 

From: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On
Behalf Of Hans von Baeyer
Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2014 12:52 AM
To: fis@listas.unizar.es
Subject: [Fis] Social constructivism

 

Stan asks: Would we be justified in viewing QBism the latest venture of
[social] constructivism? 

 

WOW, I sure hope not!  While it is true that there are fads in science, and
that the direction of research is influenced to some degree by the society
that funds it and consumes its fruits, I think that the underlying
methodology distinguishes socially constructed models of reality from
scientific ones.  Social constructions use arguments that play no role in
any account of the scientific method as it applies to the Natural Sciences
(as opposed to the Social Sciences). 

 

Some examples: Deutsche Physik referred to the ethnicity of scientists,
Lysenkoism adduced ideological goals; Creationism appeals to scripture;
Feminist Science Studies consider the gender of scientists. 

 

QBism does not change any of the impressive successes of quantum mechanics.
It simply says that quantum mechanics is a very complex, abstract encoding
of the experiences of generations of scientists interacting with atomic
systems. It disenfranchises a physicist from knowing what an electron spin,
for example, REALLY is, while celebrating her ability to predict correctly,
albeit probabilistically, what to expect in the next experiment. She and her
predecessors have created an abstract model, and validated it by appeal to
experiments, without appeal to any of the other considerations listed above.


 

In conversation with Joseph Brenner and others I have used the rainbow as a
metaphor. The rainbow is a phenomenon that everyone experiences slightly
differently, but that we all agree on. The scientific model that "explains"
it is very complicated and highly abstract.  Is the rainbow "real"?  It
certainly does not exist when nobody is looking.  It is, in the end, a
personal experience.  For me the experience is enhanced considerably by my
understanding of the scientific model of it, because it allows me to look
for and discover details I had never noticed, but I would not presume to say
I know what YOUR experience of it is.  Maybe you are thinking of Iris or
Noah, and feeling awe or curiosity, and remarking on its (apparently)
immense size and variable brightness.

 

QBism suggests that we look at the world as consisting of rainbows -- an
ensemble of complex phenomena about which we know some things, but whose
essences we cannot capture.  The QBist says: I don't know what the world is.
All I know is what I experience in my interactions with the world, as they
are illuminated and modified by what I have learned from other people, past
and present, who have had similar experiences and encoded them in the
succinct language of mathematics. 

 

Hans 

___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

Re: [Fis] Social constructivism

[Lars-Göran Johansson]

In what sense does Qbism, as described below, differ from the Copenhagen 
Interpretation? I fail to see any substantial difference.
And to my knowledge, none of the interpretations discussed after CI talks about 
any essences. And I think most (except deBroglie-Bohm interpretation) agree in 
rejecting value determinism, i.e. the doctrine that all observables have 
definite values at all times, whether measured or not.
A propose spin, it seems plausible to conclude that spin is a relational 
property, a relation between the particle and an external magnetic field.   We 
may recognize that, once we appreciate  that spin-up and spin-down states 
always tacitly refer to an external given direction in space. And this is not a 
mere spatial direction, it must have a physical realization as a field 
direction.
Lars-Göran Johansson


8 jan 2014 kl. 00:52 skrev Hans von Baeyer 
mailto:henrikrit...@gmail.com>>:

Stan asks: Would we be justified in viewing QBism the latest venture of 
[social] constructivism?

WOW, I sure hope not!  While it is true that there are fads in science, and 
that the direction of research is influenced to some degree by the society that 
funds it and consumes its fruits, I think that the underlying methodology 
distinguishes socially constructed models of reality from scientific ones.  
Social constructions use arguments that play no role in any account of the 
scientific method as it applies to the Natural Sciences (as opposed to the 
Social Sciences).

Some examples: Deutsche Physik referred to the ethnicity of scientists, 
Lysenkoism adduced ideological goals; Creationism appeals to scripture; 
Feminist Science Studies consider the gender of scientists.

QBism does not change any of the impressive successes of quantum mechanics.  It 
simply says that quantum mechanics is a very complex, abstract encoding of the 
experiences of generations of scientists interacting with atomic systems. It 
disenfranchises a physicist from knowing what an electron spin, for example, 
REALLY is, while celebrating her ability to predict correctly, albeit 
probabilistically, what to expect in the next experiment. She and her 
predecessors have created an abstract model, and validated it by appeal to 
experiments, without appeal to any of the other considerations listed above.

In conversation with Joseph Brenner and others I have used the rainbow as a 
metaphor. The rainbow is a phenomenon that everyone experiences slightly 
differently, but that we all agree on. The scientific model that "explains" it 
is very complicated and highly abstract.  Is the rainbow "real"?  It certainly 
does not exist when nobody is looking.  It is, in the end, a personal 
experience.  For me the experience is enhanced considerably by my understanding 
of the scientific model of it, because it allows me to look for and discover 
details I had never noticed, but I would not presume to say I know what YOUR 
experience of it is.  Maybe you are thinking of Iris or Noah, and feeling awe 
or curiosity, and remarking on its (apparently) immense size and variable 
brightness.

QBism suggests that we look at the world as consisting of rainbows -- an 
ensemble of complex phenomena about which we know some things, but whose 
essences we cannot capture.  The QBist says: I don't know what the world is.  
All I know is what I experience in my interactions with the world, as they are 
illuminated and modified by what I have learned from other people, past and 
present, who have had similar experiences and encoded them in the succinct 
language of mathematics.

Hans
___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

--
Lars-Göran Johansson
professor
filosofiska institutionen
Uppsala Universitet
0701-679178



___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

[Fis] Social constructivism

[Hans von Baeyer]

Stan asks: Would we be justified in viewing QBism the latest venture of
[social] constructivism?

WOW, I sure hope not!  While it is true that there are fads in science, and
that the direction of research is influenced to some degree by the society
that funds it and consumes its fruits, I think that the underlying
methodology distinguishes socially constructed models of reality from
scientific ones.  Social constructions use arguments that play no role in
any account of the scientific method as it applies to the Natural Sciences
(as opposed to the Social Sciences).

Some examples: Deutsche Physik referred to the ethnicity of scientists,
Lysenkoism adduced ideological goals; Creationism appeals to scripture;
Feminist Science Studies consider the gender of scientists.

QBism does not change any of the impressive successes of quantum mechanics.
 It simply says that quantum mechanics is a very complex, abstract encoding
of the experiences of generations of scientists interacting with atomic
systems. It disenfranchises a physicist from knowing what an electron spin,
for example, REALLY is, while celebrating her ability to predict correctly,
albeit probabilistically, what to expect in the next experiment. She and
her predecessors have created an abstract model, and validated it by appeal
to experiments, without appeal to any of the other considerations listed
above.

In conversation with Joseph Brenner and others I have used the rainbow as a
metaphor. The rainbow is a phenomenon that everyone experiences slightly
differently, but that we all agree on. The scientific model that "explains"
it is very complicated and highly abstract.  Is the rainbow "real"?  It
certainly does not exist when nobody is looking.  It is, in the end, a
personal experience.  For me the experience is enhanced considerably by my
understanding of the scientific model of it, because it allows me to look
for and discover details I had never noticed, but I would not presume to
say I know what YOUR experience of it is.  Maybe you are thinking of Iris
or Noah, and feeling awe or curiosity, and remarking on its (apparently)
immense size and variable brightness.

QBism suggests that we look at the world as consisting of rainbows -- an
ensemble of complex phenomena about which we know some things, but whose
essences we cannot capture.  The QBist says: I don't know what the world
is.  All I know is what I experience in my interactions with the world, as
they are illuminated and modified by what I have learned from other people,
past and present, who have had similar experiences and encoded them in the
succinct language of mathematics.

Hans
___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis