Is “Strings” a Dud Theory?

@ Inquirer

Sorry I missed your other point.

Pure Rationalism is logically wrong not just directly because there are so many words in the Philosophy of Descartes. At the most we can say that the thing proved is that Descartes` Philosophy is Not Pure Rationalism.

Pure Rationalism Philosophy is logically wrong because it is impossible to construct a Detailed Philosophy out of a single, or just few First Principle/s. A few ``first principles`` would be having just few words in them. Then all the detailed Philosophy shall be consisted of just those few words, because this is the hard limitation of deductive logic. Practically it is impossible to construct a detailed philosophy which may be composed of different arrangements of just few words. So the basic idea of Pure Rationalism is a misleading idea.

Thanks!

@ Inquirer

``All A is B
All B is C
Conclusion: All A is C ``

****If A, B, and C are sets. Then the above means: A is a subset of B and B is a subset of C. Therefore A is necessarily a subset of C.****
There is nothing wrong!!!!

---

Yes there is nothing wrong. But my focus point was just that any deductive conclusion is not more than just re-arrangement of those words which are already contained in the premises. Pure Rationalism can be eaisily proved to be logically wrong by just highlighting this fact.


Your Next Points:

``Rationalism does not mean getting caught in personal intellectual coccoon. A true rationalist explicitly recognizes the limitation of theories by stating the implicit assumptions on which a theory is founded.

It is true (as established by the Incompleteness Theorem) completely self-consistent description of reality cannot be made.

Actually, the reality consists of its fact as well as its perception and therefore it cannot be universal. The consensual agreement among the cognoscenti is central to any description of reality.``

---

I have no objection against a True Rationalist. I have objections against only Pure Rationalist. A True Rationalist knows the importance of sensory or empirical information. But he doesn`t confine himself in just empirical procedures. The procedure of a True Rationalist can be stated like:

Sensory Information >>> Logical Conclusions >>> Empirical Verification

I have objections against ``established`` scientists also. They are Not True Rationalists because they ignore the LOGIC part of this true procedure. If you are a Phd. in Physics, I am hopeful that you migh not have seen Theory of Logic as a part of your syllabus.

Thanks!

Re: # 43, freethinker:
Thanks. I saw the abstract and I agree with the tack there. The core idea of God is not that there is unique phenomenology related to it. It is primarily desire to seek a crutch in life. Some people are incapable of addressing mortality and therefore they have to conjure something that will exist after their own set of molecules disintegrate.

Inquire:

You can search on Google or yahoo and you will find the article at a couple of places. Unfortunately, the complete article is not available free of charge; only the abstract is accessible. If you can find the magazine ``Free Inquiry`` in a library, you might read the complete article in it.

Mohammad Gill

Re: # 41, freethinker:

Thanks. Could you provide the electronic access for the article referred to by you in this post.

Khuram:

I am sorry I confused your name with khurram. As a matter of fact, I didn’t realize that two khur(r)ams were interacting with me.

I still see some confusion in your thinking but I’ll let it pass. However, scientists are not purely rationalists as you stated; even the theoretical scientists are not purely rationalists. They are rational (in the sense of logical) but not purely rationalists. I quoted Aristotle who was purely rationalist and was wrong in the example I quoted.

If the premises are wrong, the conclusions obtained by deductive logic will necessarily be wrong. I had published an article “Reverse Logic in the Philosophy of God” in Free Inquiry, Fall 2002, Vol.22, No.4, in which I had discussed this point. Read it if you have time.

Read the post #38 by Inquirer; it might help to clarify further some of these issues for you.

Regards,

Mohammad Gill

To ALL:

Rationalism does not mean getting caught in personal intellectual coccoon. A true rationalist explicitly recognizes the limitation of theories by stating the implicit assumptions on which a theory is founded.

It is true (as established by the Incompleteness Theorem) completely self-consistent description of reality cannot be made.

Actually, the reality consists of its fact as well as its perception and therefore it cannot be universal. The consensual agreement among the cognoscenti is central to any description of reality.

Re: # 38, khuram:

``All A is B
All B is C
Conclusion: All A is C ``

****If A, B, and C are sets. Then the above means: A is a subset of B and B is a subset of C. Therefore A is necessarily a subset of C.****
There is nothing wrong!!!!

``In this conclusion, not a single word is anything new. All these four words are already contained in the premises. So in any deductive conclusion, all the contents of conclusion are already contained in the premises. In the conclusion, only the arrangement of words is changed.
xxxx
Pure Rationalism is logically wrong....!!! because actually there are so many words in the philosophy of Descartes.``
****This is baloney. Nothing but obfuscation!!!!****

Gill Sahib,

Sir I also might have created some confusions ... that I should resolve now. But see that you also are confusing ``khuram`` with ``khurram`` (don`t mind sir, just kidding). Anyway I try to resolve my part of confusions:


The sense-perception information is gained using our basic senses. It is opposed to the information that one develops by pure rational reasoning.

First of all I do not accept the idea of ``pure rational reasoning``. For me, the idea of a Rationalist that mind can find the first principle without any involvement of sensory information is WRONG AB INITIO.

In this connection, for me, point of view of John Locke is true that all basic knowledge comes only through the channel of senses. Mind cannot reach to any first principle without involvement of sensory information.

A Rationalist like Descartes or Hegel says that mind, at its own, can reach to first principle. All other knowledge of reality then can be deduced out of that first principle. Thus this form of Pure Rationalism works on deductive logic.

Now I try to explain that this ``Pure Rationalism`` is deductive logically inaccurate. Consider the following simple deductive argument:

All A is B
All B is C
Conclusion: All A is C

Now I try to analyze this ``conclusion``. This deductive conclusion consists of four words which are (i) All, (ii) A, (iii) is (iv) C

In this conclusion, not a single word is anything new. All these four words are already contained in the premises. So in any deductive conclusion, all the contents of conclusion are already contained in the premises. In the conclusion, only the arrangement of words is changed.

Now take the example of a renowned first principle i.e. ``Cogito Ergo Sum``. Descartes claims that this is the first principle of his philosophy. In the Pure Rationalism, all other contents of philosophy must have to be deduced out of this first principle.

Now we know that in any deductive conclusion, only the arrangement of words is changed. What it means? If Descartes` philosophy is really a Pure Rationalism, then there should not be more than three words in his whole detailed philosophy.

Pure Rationalism is logically wrong....!!! because actually there are so many words in the philosophy of Descartes. Descartes is having a false claim that he is pure Rationalist Philosopher. In the real sense, his Philosophy could not go against the basic idea of John Locke. That`s why his detailed philosophy is having so many words ... which are although seeming to be the part of reasoning ... but actually have come from sensory information.

Now I again come to your statement. You wrote:

The sense-perception information is gained using our basic senses. It is opposed to the information that one develops by pure rational reasoning.

Sensory information is considered to be opposed to rational reasoning by the Pure Rationalist Philosophers. Pure Rationalists` point of view is logically wrong so your statement is also logically wrong.

Fact is not that reasoning is opposed to sensory information. Fact is that reasoning is actually a RE-ARRANGEMENT of sensory information.

Your next statement:

``You see the Sun rising in the east and setting in the west. This information is gained by sense-perception. You see it every day.``

I do not consider it the product of sense-perception. Rather, I consider it the product of sense-experience. I already have given the link of article where I have explained this point. If you insist on your view-point, then you should prove that my explanation is wrong. For the ready reference, I am again giving the same link: Knowledge of Objects & Properties.


Your Further Points:

A classical example of pure rational information is that of Aristotle who believed that Earth was the center of the universe because it was the abode of man who is the best creation of God. All the planets including Sun revolve around the Earth. Circle is the best form and hence the planets move in circular orbits. God is unchanging and permanent, so the speed of the planets is constant.

All these three rational viewpoints were wrong. Copernicus placed Earth at the center of the universe (solar system) to simplify the astronomical computations. But Johannes Kepler showed conclusively that Aristotle was wrong on all the three counts. He used Tycho Brahe’s data and found that things get simplified if Sun is placed at the center and let Earth to revolve around it (as Copernicus had suggested). He also found that the planets slowed down when they were farther from Sun and speeded up when they were nearer. Hence the speed of the planets was not constant. He also found that the planets moved in elliptical orbits rather than circular as was conjectured by Aristotle.

Therefore, the final test of the veracity of a theory is empirical.

My opinion is that all knowkledge is basically empirical ... because point of view of John Locke i.e. an Empiricist, was right.

But in my opinion, there is no clash between ``empirical knowledge`` and the so-called ``rational knowledge``. Rational Knowledge is actually just a re-arrangement of empirical knowledge. This point of view, basically, was originated by David Hume. This classical example of ``Earth Centric`` vs ``Solar Centric``, actually is NOT the story of clash between ``empirical knowledge`` and ``rational knowledge``. Actually this is the story of improvements and refinements in ``Rational Knowledge``. I am not talking of ``Rational Knowledge`` of a Pure Rationalist Philosopher. I am talking of that ``Rational Knowledge`` which takes input from sensory information ... because actually ``Rational Knowledge`` is a ``re-arrangement`` of sensory information. You can see the same story, with this true perspective in my article on: ``Knowledge Explosion in the Modern Times``.

My point of view is different from the point of view of ``established`` scientists. But I insist on my point. Since scientists take ``Rational Knowledge`` in the sense of a ``Pure Rational Philosopher`` ... so they wrongfully and erroneously are down grading the ``Rational Knowledge``. If we take ``Rational Knowledge`` in the sense of ``re-arrangement`` of sensory information, then we shall realize the true importance of Rational Knowledge. Then we shall know that Empirical Knowledge is actually the Raw Material whereas the Finished Product is the Rational Knowledge.

We should pay some attention towards the refinement and improvement of our finished product also. Currently we are emphasizing only on ``empirical knowledge`` ... And we are disregarding the theory of logic. So this this my point.

And about ``Cause Effects``. I had mentioned that point as a reply to Mr. Khurram`s point. I understand and accept your point as well.

Thanks and Regards!

Re: # 36, freethinker

Excellent. I hope your tutorial will help many Chowkies.

Khurram:

You’re confusing a couple of things. Let me try to elucidate them in the following.

The sense-perception information is gained using our basic senses. It is opposed to the information that one develops by pure rational reasoning.

You see the Sun rising in the east and setting in the west. This information is gained by sense-perception. You see it every day.

A classical example of pure rational information is that of Aristotle who believed that Earth was the center of the universe because it was the abode of man who is the best creation of God. All the planets including Sun revolve around the Earth. Circle is the best form and hence the planets move in circular orbits. God is unchanging and permanent, so the speed of the planets is constant.

All these three rational viewpoints were wrong. Copernicus placed Earth at the center of the universe (solar system) to simplify the astronomical computations. But Johannes Kepler showed conclusively that Aristotle was wrong on all the three counts. He used Tycho Brahe’s data and found that things get simplified if Sun is placed at the center and let Earth to revolve around it (as Copernicus had suggested). He also found that the planets slowed down when they were farther from Sun and speeded up when they were nearer. Hence the speed of the planets was not constant. He also found that the planets moved in elliptical orbits rather than circular as was conjectured by Aristotle.

Therefore, the final test of the veracity of a theory is empirical.

Lastly, the concept of cause-effect relationship. It is a common observation that when you press the accelerator, the car speeds up. Pressing the accelerator is the cause and speeding up is the effect. But it doesn’t always work. In the sub-atomic world, many events just happen. There, one cannot predict the effect of a certain cause. Quantum mechanics is all probabilistic.

This was the point of a hot and long debate between Einstein and Niels Bohr. They debated for thirty years (until Einstein died) without accepting each other’s point of view. Einstein believed that the theory of quantum mechanics was incomplete; there was something more to it. It appears he was wrong.

Mohammad Gill

@ khurram

Science tell us mainly about two types of cause effect relations. First type is that let`s say objects fall towards ground. We get direct verification of this type of cause effects through ``Sense Experience`` i.e. Not through ``Sense Perception``. We can predict or forecast as well as practically apply this type of cause effect relations. I have used term ``practical application`` jus in the sense that we can drop any objects from above ground and can practically see the falling object.

The second type of cause effect relations neither can be predicted nor can be ``practically seen``. This type of cause effects are usually the logical answers to the question why let`s say objects fall towards ground? Scientists have proposed i.e. not ``found`` ... the ``logical`` answers to this question in the form of ``concept`` of gravitation.

First type of cause effects are therefore pure empirical. What scientists are not openly accepting is that second type of cause effects are Not pure empirical but are actually logical in nature. We cannot get any direct verification of the concept of Gravitation. We judge the truth of this type of cause effects by getting surity that all the observable or noticable phenomenon has perfect logical relationship with the concept of Gravitation.

For details, see my article on ``Cause Effects``:

For the difference between ``sense perception`` and ``sense experience`` ... see my article ``Knowledge of Objects and Properties``.



@ Gill Sahib,,

Thanks for the clarification. Right now I am getting late ... Your reply is to the point ... I mean rightly addressing to my points. My new point is that whats your opinion regarding above mentioned second type of case effect relations? Should we consider them ``empirical`` or ``logical``...???

Regards!

Re: # 29, freethinker:

Thanks for your response. Thre IS a tendency among Chowkies to not make any effort to see the viewpoint of an author. All writers are the bearers of this cross at Chowk. Let me state unequivocally that your critics do not provide a third of substance you do. I would like to register my support for your mode of thinking. There is a dire shortage of the interpretter of developing subjects among the South Asians. Please keep on!!

Khurram:

My article presented a brief review of the status of the string theory. A theory is not accepted as scientific until it is empirically verified. Such verification can be direct or indirect.

There doesn’t seem to be much of a possibility for direct verification of this theory in the near future but there may be some indirect verification. Such a possibility was mentioned in the article.

Scientific research is seldom a straight path. Those who are involved in doing research try various possible tracks. Even a track which appears to be non-productive in the beginning is tried nonetheless because nothing much is known a’priori. Einstein’s theory of general relativity was verified after 4 years of its publication. Salam et al’s electro-weak theory was verified after several years (even after the Nobel Prize had been awarded).

History of science provides several such instances. Some string theorists are mystified by the mathematical beauty of string theory. So it is difficult to discard it because it doesn’t have any straightforward verification. Dirac’s theory predicted the existence of ‘anti-matter’ which was unthinkable at the time Dirac published his work. The anti-particle (positron) was discovered soon after the theory was published.

The stumbling block is that it (the string theory) is still incomplete and elusive. But when it is completed, it will only be accepted by the science community when it is verified empirically directly or indirectly.

I don’t know if I have answered your question(s). Be well,

Mohammad Gill

Re #3 khuram,

I hope you are not confusing `empirical` with `direct sensory perception`.

Gill Sahib,

Your article is telling that this ``string`` theory is not getting the status of science due the many reasons like absence of empirical predictions etc. Even supporters of this theory are just saying that science shall make any such equipment in future that shall empirically test this theory.

You have presented only the philosophical aspects, that relate to the so called ``sciencibility`` of this theory. Now you are saying that chowkies do not know requirements of science related articles. Your article is philosophical ... not scientific. You have not presented the scientific details of this theory.

Those who are against this theory ... are having opinion that this theory cannot be empirically tested. Supporters are telling that it shall be empirically tested/ verified at some time in future.

I had criticized the empirical method itself. Both supporters and critiques of this theory are talking in terms of so called ``Empirical Method``. You are also waiting for the suitable ``empirical proof`` for this theory. To discuss about ``Empirical Method`` itself is philosophical ... not scientific. Popper`s concept of ``falsification`` etc. is also philosophical in nature even though the same concept is used to decide the ``sciencibility`` of scientific nature theories.

I shall appreciate your reply to my criticism of Empirical Method.

Regardes!