Edit history

[…] (that Aristotle observed) is not a vacuum. Air resistance is a thing; that is. So, the medium an object is falling through matters. Heavier objects *do* […] many cases. That is perfectly consistent with Newton's theory of gravitation. (The irony here is that Newton transcended Aristotle not by looking at the world, but by *not* just looking at the world.) Anyway, I would argue the reason that Aristotlean mechanics persisted was not […]

[…] this: the ability to measure, predict, compress, and control the world. This adds up to "understanding" the world (or is my summation incomplete?). There are many ways of doing this., though, and I would be shocked if we've even scratched the surface. AI, […]

[…] What idiots! They should have just created a miniverse with giant electrons (taking advantage of scale invariance-invariant?) electrons, then experienced firsthand what it's like to be an electron! That's how […]

[…] change. Some things--electrons--aren't so easy to "directly observe", whatever that means. The reasoning goes:If measurement is a necessary condition for observation; measurement changes the system; therefore, it is impossible to make an observation without changing the system. So, will science, which depends on measurement, need new methods? To me, science pursues this: the ability to measure, predict, compress, and control the world. There are many ways of doing this, and. I would be shocked if we've even scratched the surface. AI, […]

[…] four "elements", but phases of matter! Solid, liquid, gas, and plasma... Anyways, my view is this: the Greeks knew a lot, reflected deeply, and ultimately their ideas weren't so idiotic. Next Now onto Plato. Yes, Plato thinks true knowledge only comes from understanding […] to signal their fidelity to Science. And I find it distasteful. My view is: the Greeks knew a lot, reflected deeply, and ultimately, their ideas weren't so idiotic. What is the actual point of this post, though? **I have a […] the "controlled experiment" is one "method", and one that characterizes science in particular. A modern example: Computer simulations are one new way (New Kind, […] some point, the emphasis on observation or experiment will change. Some things--electrons, famously--aren't so easy to "directly observe", whatever that means. MeasurementThe reasoning goes: measurement is a necessary condition for observation; measurement changes the system; therefore, it is impossible to make an observation without changing the system!. So, will science may need new methods.? To me, science pursues this: the ability to measure, predict, compress, and control the world. There are many ways of doing this., and I would be shocked if we've even scratched the surface. AI, […] ways of understanding the world. And they will be able to doachieve things that past methods could not. My expectation: someday, people will […] Science is dead." Something like that, at least. In any event, therethis gripe doesn't really matter. There is a lot more to do. But stillStill, I think people should respect how far we've come. And I bet our ways of obtaining truth today will look limited, or […] hindsight of year 3000 -- if we're still here, that is. Anyways, Galileo and Einstein were geniuses, just as Aristotle and Plato were. And […] (by I which mean not only technologies, but methods of inquiry). Ultimately, itIt's hard to pursue truth. I respect all people who do it.

[…] compress, and control the world. There are many ways of doing this, and. I would be shocked if we've even scratched the surface. AI, […] What idiots! They should have just created a miniverse with giant electrons, (taking advantage of scale invariance,) then experienced firsthand what it's like to be an electron! That's […] any event, there is a lot more to do. But still, I think people should respect how far we've come. I bet our ways of obtaining truth today will look limited, or even ridiculous, from the hindsight of year 3000 -- if we're still here, that is. Anyways, […] had all the same tools (by I which mean not only technologytechnologies, but methods of inquiry). Ultimately, it's hard to pursue truth. I respect all people who do it.

[…] and control the world. There are many ways of doing this, though, and I would be shocked if we've even scratched the surface. AI, […]

[…] it is impossible to make an observation without changing the system! So science may need new methods. To me, science pursues this: the ability to measure, predict, compress, and […]

[…] point, the emphasis on observation or experiment will change. Some things--electrons, famously--cannot be truly aren't so easy to "directly observedobserve", whatever that means. Measurement is a necessary condition for observation; measurement changes the system; […]

[…] it is impossible to make an observation without changing the system! Ultimately, the goal of seeking truth is always understanding. To me, that looks likescience pursues this: the ability to measure, predict, compress, and control the world. There […] will be able to do things that past methods could not. In any event, there is a lot more to do. But still, people should respect how far we've come. I bet our ways of obtaining truth today will look limited from hindsight of year 3000 -- if we're still here, that is. My expectation: someday, people will slander contemporary scientists just the same […] an obvious method? Science is dead." Something like that, at least. In any event, there is a lot more to do. But still, people should respect how far we've come. I bet our ways of obtaining truth today will look limited from hindsight of year 3000 -- if we're still here, that is. Anyways, Galileo and Einstein were geniuses, just as Aristotle and Plato were. […]

[…] objects *do* empirically fall faster than lighter objects, in many cases. That is perfectly consistent with Newton's theory of gravitation. Anyway, I would argue the reason that Aristotlean mechanics persisted was not […]

[…] old Aristotle". As far as physics, it is considerably more complicated. But firstHowever, there isfirst think of the common refrain: "Aristotle thought heavier objects fall faster than lighter objects!" This is obviously wrong!" ... but is, right? Is it? The natural world (that Aristotle observed) is not a vacuum. Air resistance is a thing; that is, the medium an object is falling through matters. Heavier objects *do* empirically fall faster than lighter objects, in many cases. Anyway, I would argue the reason that Aristotlean mechanics persisted iswas not because of dogma, but because it explained the world with […]

[…] they were "mere school-boys to old Aristotle". As far as physics, it is considerably more complicated. But first, there is the common refrain: "Aristotle thought heavier objects fall faster than lighter objects! This is obviously wrong!" ... but is it? The natural world (that Aristotle observed) is not a vacuum. Air resistance is a thing; the medium an object is falling through matters. Heavier objects *do* empirically fall faster than lighter objects in many cases. Anyway, I would argue the reason that Aristotlean mechanics persisted is not because […]

[…] start with Aristotle, who made extensive biological observations. He systemized Marine Biology, for crying out loud. In fact, he was practically the founder of zoology!. Darwin himself said his "two gods" were Linnaeus and Cuvier, but […]

Only formatting changed.

Only formatting changed.

[…] Plato used "understanding" to mean something more like "certain knowledge". And he didn't think empirical datapoints rose to that standard. But then, isn't that […]

[…] Plato used "understanding" to mean something more like "certain knowledge". And didn't think empirical datapoints rose to that standard. But then, isn't that just how scientists today think about empirical knowledge -- […]

[…] four "elements", but phases of matter! Solid, liquid, gas, and plasma... sound familiar? Anyways, my view is this: the Greeks knew a lot, reflected deeply, […]

[…] And yet in my experience, modern people love to poke fun ofat the ancient Greeks, Plato and Aristotle in particular. People seeminglyIt seems that people consider scholastic philosophy impotent, especially compared to modern Science. In particular, people seem to believe that Plato and Aristotle were "armchair" thinkers/rationalists who never looked at […]

[…] and control the world. There are many ways of doing this, though, and I would be shocked if we've even scratched the surface. AI, […] will be able to do things that past methods could not. ThereIn any event, there is a lot more to do. But still, people should respect […] of obtaining truth today will look limited from hindsight of year 3000, -- if we're still therehere, that is. My expectation: someday, people will slander contemporary scientists just the same […]

[…] say that the "controlled experiment" is one "method", and one that definescharacterizes science. A modern example: Computer simulations are one new way (New […]

[…] phases of matter! Solid, liquid, gas, and plasma... sound familiar? Anyways, my view is this: the Greeks knew a lot, reflected deeply, and ultimately their ideas weren't so idiotic. ThenNext onto Plato. Yes, Plato thinks true knowledge only comes from understanding […]

[…] they were "mere school-boys to old Aristotle". As far as physics, I would argue the reason that Aristotlean mechanics persisted is not because of dogma, but […] consistency (i.e. it compressed many datapoints with some reasonable amount of accuracy)! Anyways. On this point, some more reading is here: https://arxiv.org/abs/1312.4057 Another example: something like the […]

[…] Aristotle, who made extensive biological observations. He systemized Marine Biology, for examplecrying out loud. In fact, he was practically the founder of zoology! Darwin himself said his "two gods" were […]

[…] the outside world, and so aren't worth engaging with. But this perspective is untrue. I don't want to fixate on this point, but I […]

[…] and Aristotle were "armchair" thinkers/rationalists who never looked at the outside world, and so aren't worth engaging with. But this is untrue. I don't want to fixate on this […]

[…] poke fun of the ancient Greeks, Plato and Aristotle in particular. It seems people think ofPeople seemingly consider scholastic philosophy as being impotent, especially compared to modern Science. SpecificallyIn particular, people seem to believe that Plato and Aristotle were "armchair" thinkers/rationalists […]

[…] poke fun of the ancient Greeks, Plato and Aristotle in particular. PeopleIt seems people think of scholastic philosophy as being impotent. Specifically, people seem to believe that Plato and Aristotle were "armchair" thinkers/rationalists who […]

[…] simulations are one new way (New Kind, perhaps) of doing science. Anyways, **myMy prediction, then, is:** at some point, the emphasis on observation or experiment will change. […] it is impossible to make an observation without changing the system! AI, for example, will probably open new avenues, new ways of understanding the world. And they will be able to do things that past methods could not. Ultimately, the goal of seeking truth is always understanding. To me, […] and I would be shocked if we've even scratched the surface. AI, for example, will probably open new avenues, new ways of understanding the world. And they will be able to do things that past methods could not. There is a lot more to do. But still, people should respect how far we've come. I bet our ways of obtaining truth today will look limited from hindsight of year 3000, if we're still there. My expectation: someday, people will slander contemporary scientists just the same way […] an obvious method? Science is dead." Something like that, at least. Anyways, Galileo and Einstein were geniuses, just as Aristotle and Plato were. ItAnd I will always think it's fascinating, even useful, to understand how previous greats made it happen, even (especially) before they had all the same tools (by I which mean not only technology, but methods of inquiry). Ultimately, it's hard to pursue truth. I respect all people who do it.

[…] like the ability to measure, predict, compress, and control the world. There are many ways of doing this, and I would be shocked if we've even scratched the surface. My expectation: someday, people will slander contemporary scientists just the same way […]

[…] amount of accuracy)! Anyways, some more reading is here: https://arxiv.org/abs/1312.4057 Another issueexample: something like the idea that there are "four elements"--earth, water, air, fire--is ridiculed. But what are these four "elements", but phases of matter! Solid, liquid, gas, and plasma... sound familiar? Anyways, the Greeks knew a lot, reflected deeply, and ultimately their ideas weren't so idiotic. Onto Then onto Plato. Something people ridicule aboutYes, Plato is that he thinks true knowledge only comes from understanding the Forms. Our material impressions are illusory, and all that. And it's true, a potential objection: isn't the world "out there" also important for learning aboutour knowledge? Don't we need to experiment, to look at the natural world? Yes. The thing, though, is that Plato never denied empiricism. Datapoints from the world were part of thehis process: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy_of_the_divided_line YesTo be precise, Plato used "understanding" to mean something more like "certain knowledge". ButAnd then, isn't that just how scientists today think about empirical knowledge -- a matter of probability, rather than a logical certainty, ensured by the rigor of a formal system?! As Einstein said: "As far as […] far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." I think this idea is similar to what Plato believed. Anyways. All that said, I think people like to slam the Greeks […]

[…] (i.e. it compressed many datapoints with some reasonable amount of accuracy)! I don't want to get into this pointAnyways, butsome more reading is here: https://arxiv.org/abs/1312.4057 Another issue: something like the idea […]

[…] I will start with Aristotle, who made extensive biological observations. He is arguably the greatestsystemized Marine Biologist of all timeBiology, andfor example. In fact, he was practically the founder of zoology! Darwin himself said his "two gods" were […]

Only formatting changed.

[…] Democritus, Epicurus, Plato, and Aristotle were all remarkable thinkers. And yet in my experience, modern people love to poke fun of the ancient Greeks, Plato and Aristotle in particular. In my experience, at least, peoplePeople seem to believe that Plato and Aristotle were "armchair" thinkers/rationalists who […]

Thought of the day. When I read about the Ancient Greeks, I am filled with admiration. Euclid, Democritus, Epicurus, Plato, […] untrue. I don't want to fixate on this point, but I do want towill briefly try and make it. I will start with Aristotle, who made extensive biological […] dogma, but because it explained the world with some empirical consistency (i.e. it compressed many datapoints with some reasonable amount of accuracy)! I don't want to get into this point, but more reading […] Solid, liquid, gas, and plasma. Anyways, the Greeks knew a lot, reflected deeply, and ultimately their ideas weren't so idiotic. Onto Plato. Something people ridicule about Plato is that he thinks […] understanding the Forms. Our material impressions are illusory, and all that. And it's true, isn't the world out there also important for learning about the natural world? The thing, though, is that Plato never denied empiricism. Datapoints from the world were part of the process: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy_of_the_divided_line Yes, Plato used "understanding" to mean something like "certain knowledge". But then, isn't that just how scientists today think about empirical knowledge […] what do I think will happen? We will have new methods. They come into existence every once in a while; I would say that the "controlled experiment" is one "method", and one that defines science. A modern example: Computer simulations are one new way (New Kind, perhaps) of doing science that has arisen in the past 50 years. Anyways, **Thenmy prediction is:** at some point, the emphasis on observation or experiment may be reducedwill change. Some things--electrons, of coursefamously--cannot be truly directly observed. Measurement is a necessary condition for observation; measurement changes the system; and sotherefore, it is impossible to make an observation without changing the system! AI, for example, will probably open new avenues, new ways of understanding the world. TheAnd they will be able to do things that past methods could not. Ultimately, the goal of seeking truth is always understanding. To me, that looks […]