Inconsistency in Science: An Argument for Dialetheism?

Scientific realists hold that we are justified in believing that our best scientific theories are true. But what if those theories are inconsistent? This video examines the argument that realists are committed to believing that there are true contradictions.

0:00 - Introduction
0:59 - Scientific realism
2:53 - Three kinds of inconsistency in science
8:14 - From realism to dialetheism
11:45 - The law of non-contradiction
14:31 - Theoretical virtues
19:41 - Belief vs ontology
25:54 - Consistency as a pragmatic necessity

[loganlawrence]

Probably my favorite philosophy channel on YouTube right now. Extremely clear and in depth

[whirlwind]

Inconsistencies in abstractions arise from the very way our brains work. We identify patterns and store them as symbols/objects in our mind. Physical objects are perceived as objects despite being made of an infinite number of constituents. For example we identify a chair as a chair without viewing its legs and arm rests and cushioning, or the material properties or the atoms. We see a "chair" as we have stored the particular visual pattern in our mind as an object - a "chair." The same is true of abstract concepts. We store concepts as symbols/objects in our mind and label them. Even things as simple as numbers are simply stored symbols representing real world patterns. This is how we reason and it's why numbers, logic, math, and reasoning are so intertwined. In the case of both numbers AND abstract concepts, we store them as discrete objects in our mind and then perform transformations on them with other stored objects in order to reason to a conclusion. An abstract concept is merely an object your mind has constructed as shorthand for a pattern it identified. The patterns you can identify and store as objects have no relation to each other necessarily, so they can be contradictory and inconsistent.

[whycantiremainanonymous]

About the consistency of the observable domain (see the slide around 33:00), I don't think this will do. The realm of observation is well-known to be inconsistent. The same object may appear different to different observers, or to the same observer at different times (perhaps even to the same observer at the same time, though this is very unusual). The tedious protocoles designed to ensure the objectivity of scientific tests and observations are there precisely because "raw" observations are inconsistent. The only reason we raise the demand of consistency to our scientific observations in the first place stems from our commitment to the view (whether or not this view is ultimately correct) that the reality our observations report on is itself ontologically consistent.

[vyvlad]

> what would it mean for a planet to spin and not spin at the same time

Ask an electron, which most definitely has angular momentum and is also not spinning. You could concoct a strongly magnetic planet whose surface is slowly rotating but has zero angular momentum.

[justus]

Next video: How trees prove dialetheism

[Self-Duality]

Nice. I like to think of “scientific inconsistency” as a function of (1) underdetermination and (2) genuine evolution. One can show, with a strong dose of fancy footwork, that (1) and (2) are mutually recursive.

[tomarchelone]

The particle and continuous views on liquid is just two models that are convenient for the tasks they are used in.

All models in science are approximations. Even if there was a supercomplex model that reflects all the properties of the fluid, then still it would make sense to use simple approximations that work for the problems of interest to us.

Noone postulates that "It's only particles" or "NO! It is continuois!". There is no inconsistency here.

A straw man at its worst.

[InventiveHarvest]

In econ, we find inconsistency, ambiguity, points of discontinuation, etc. I reject the idea that consistency is a pragmatic necessity for science. Now, if I described these inconsistencies to a philosopher, they would just tell me that it is not a true contradiction, even when I describe it as "it is the case that X and it is not the case that X".

Anyway, another good video sir.

When will we see more chocolate reactions?

[jimmyfaulkner]

Hi Kane B. I was wondering could you do a video in the future exploring certain philosophical paradigms in philosophy/metaphysics, such as process philosophy (and maybe “neo-Humean metaphysics” alongside the “Powers metaphysic”). I find it difficult to understand exactly what it is and what are its main philosophical tenets. Thanks

[dominiks]

Whether we are justified in believing contradictory theories seems to heavily depend a) on one's intuitions and b) on one's theory of epistemology - let's say we are foundationalists who think that we can recognise necessary truths via rational intuition, let's assume that I have the rational intuition that the LNC is necessarily true and let's assume that those basic beliefs form the basis for all other non-basic beliefs... then the fact that a theory is inconsistent would not just be a mark against that theory, but would rule it out from the very beginning - all other theoretical virtues would be irrelevant, if that theory of epistemology is correct. The whole "theoretical virtues" section of the video makes sense *if we are coherentists*, but coherentism is pretty unpopular

[walterlucas]

I have a funny argument: assuming classical logic we can say that, via the explosion principle, a theory that is really contradictory allows us to deduce anything from it. So a contradictory theory cannot explain anything because for anything that can be deduced from it we can also deduce the negation. Therefore the contradictory theory doesn't say anything determinate about the world and cannot explain any single event.
But a contradictory theory actually can really explain an event or phenomenon. So classical logic implies something false. Via modus tollens we can thus conclude that we must reject classical logic.

[ravenecho]

stat mech helps resolve micro to macro behavior in terms of collisions

[badabing]

trying to learn how light works when i was in middleschool was possibly the most frustrating experience i had with learning. Still dont really know honestly.

[cunjoz]

next video: quantum mechanics: an argument for mind body dualism?

[shafouingue]

A potential topic that you could cover, that comes to my mind, is the difference between observable and unobservable

[bobs]

Our ancestors were worms. We will seem like worms to our descendants some day. We should not deceive ourselved into believing that we understand the world as it is rather than the incomplete perspective of a still evolving worm.

[italogiardina]

Science and antilogy seem to be team players within modernization and it's alethic discontents.

[HudBug]

i’d just accept anti-realism about science and start a new reformulation of logical rules

[SystemsMedicine]

Let me help you out here, buddy…. Substitute the word ‘approximate’ for ‘inconsistent’, and jettison the use of the word ‘truth’ when discussing science. Most of the issues in your video evaporate under this substitution. You might reason about ‘approximate models for objects’ instead of reasoning about ‘inconsistent objects’. Then your need to analyze belief in inconsistent objects becomes rather moot.

The so-called law of non contradiction is not of much use when actually doing science; ignore it.

By the way, molecular biologists are archetypes of scientists who experiment and reason with high levels of (apparent) inconsistencies in experiments and their theoretical interpretations. [But really these are more reasonably labeled as approximations.] This is largely due to high levels of noise and uncertainties in their field of science, due to such things as physiological complexities and extreme organic chemistry difficulties.

[AntiCitizenX]

The sheer volume of misinformation and misrepresentation of science in this video is almost impressive. Scientists do NOT believe inconsistencies. If an inconsistency emerges in science, it either means the theory is wrong, or it has been mal-formed. Nobody goes around believing inconsistencies in the manner that this video suggests.