Scientific Knowledge

That's what I'm saying, and that that is the protocol. There's no reason, from a scientific persepective, to talk about the correctness or reality-ness. That question is outside the scope of science, i.e. it is not something science can answer about itself.You're into philosophy at that point.

How can that be the "protocol" when scientific theories are seeking to provide explanation and understanding rather than just predictions for engineers? If you want to construct a theory that accurately describes reality then of course there is. How could there not be?What kind of lunatic would say that evolutionary theory is a superior theory to the Genesis account regarding the origins of species without meaning that it is a more accurate description of reality? So what?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Well, I do tend to think in terms of Applied Science....I suppose there could be some Theoretical Scientists out there who think of their theories in terms of correct-ness and reality-ness... but that's thier problem But that was my point, that scientists don't give a shit about how accurately they're "describing reality" as long as the theory is working. But then again, I'm thinking about the application here, not some musings outside of the lab. I have work to do in the lab... Have fun musing about how much correctness you've attained.ABE:If you want to talk about correct-ness and reality-ness of scientific theories, then I don't really have a problem with that, hell feel free to throw the word 'know' in there. I know that when you drop your pen that it will fall, and if you tell me what height you're going to drop it from, then I'd know how long it was going to to take to hit the desk, every single time you drop it, I know it is going to accelerate at the same rate. That's because of the reality that we live in and our equations for determining that stuff are correct.But all that is very colloquial...Edited by Catholic Scientist, : see ABE

Straggler tries to welcome me: Consider this post excerpt from Zen Deist in Message 265: I draw your attention to the 4 references to Example Usage, which all imply that the Pseudoskeptic has NOT provided evidence to support being 6 or more.Here, from Zen Diest's Message 274: Notice the sentence below the box. "Without substantiating empirical objective evidence..."In they case of my pen experiments on my desk, I have substantiating empirical objective evidence, both from own investigation and by the world-wide independent experiments on gravity, to justify taking a 6d position on it doing something supernaturalishly unexpected without being Pseudoskeptical.I might add that even with some substantiating empirical objective evidence, Positions 1 and 7 are logically invalid. But I won't go into that now - that's another day.continuing...: I forget - who has not agreed?Edited by xongsmith, : The agony of cloneEdited by xongsmith, : clarity

Hi Straggles,I'm pretty booked up and only have a little time for responses at the moment. I was in luddite land yesterday, and my phone and aircard got dumped just after my last post. Doing a little better now, but time ... First we need to look at what you are claiming in more detail to see where you take what I see as a false step in your reasoning. I will start with the math, as it should be the clearest example to deal with:I. A Priori Assumptions A:

1. We define constant A to be a special number where A+A = A
   ​
   then we ask if A+B = B
   ​
   add A to each side:
   ​
   then A+A+B = A+B
   ​
   we know A+A = A by a priori assumption
   ​
   so (A+A)+B is the same as A+B
   ​
   so A+B = A+B
   ​
   subtract A from each side:
   ​
   then B = B :: which is tautologically true (definition of equality)
   ​
   • so ∴ A+B = B is true
   ​
2. Now add A to each side:
   ​
   then A+A+B = A+B
   ​
   and now subtract B from each side:
   ​
   then A+A = A :: does this prove that A+A = A?
   ​
   • No: it shows the operations and results are mathematically consistent with the a priori assumption
   ​
   • If we don't start with this a priori (or similar) assumption that A+A = A, we can't derive the result that A+B = B, and then we cannot work backward from A+B = B to show that A+A = A.
   ​
3. Next we ask what number A is, such that A+A = A is true
   ​
   Subtract A from each side
   ​
   then A = ?EMPTY?
   ​
   :: we define ?EMPTY? to be a concept we name 'zero'
   ​
   A+A = A :: zero + zero = zero
   ​
   zero + zero + zero = zero etc
   ​
   A+B = B :: zero + B = B
   ​
   zero + zero + B = B etc
   ​
   :: derived property P1: adding 'zero' to any number results in that number
   • where P1 this is a derived property of the a priori assumption that A+A = A and the condition that A+B = B
   ​
4. Next we ask if there is a number B such that B+B = B is true
   ​
   following the approach above for A:
   ​
   we end up with B = ?EMPTY? :: which we have defined as 'zero'
   ​
   if B+B = B is true then B = A = zero :: which is a mundanely true possibility
   ​
5. Next we ask what happens if there is a number B such that B ≠ A
   ​
   if B ≠ A
   ​
   we now add B to each side:
   ​
   so B+B ≠ A+B
   ​
   and we know from P1 above that A+B = B
   ​
   so B+B ≠ B
   ​
   now B can be any number but zero :: we can define B to be 'one' and say
   ​
   zero + one = one :: QED
   ​
   and
   ​
   one + one ≠ one :: QED

We could go on and say B+B = C and define that concept as 'two' and then develop a whole bunch of fun maths, but the point is:

1. The results derived from the a priori assumptions are:
   1. 0 + 1 = 1 and
   2. 1 + 1 ≠ 1
2. They are true as long as the a priori assumptions are assumed to be true
3. Without the a priori assumptions they are not necessarily true
4. You cannot validate the the a priori assumptions by working backwards from the derived results and principles based on the a priori assumptions.

Because these results 1a and 1b are proven, we can have Absolute Confidence in the mathematic conclusions contained within the "blue" area defined by A Priori Assumptions A - that A+A = A and A+B = B where A ≠B.II. A Priori Assumptions B:If instead we assume we are refering to a {set\class\group\bunch} of objects, then adding more examples of the {set\class\group\bunch} still results in one {set\class\group\bunch}: for example a dog will always be a dog, any new offspring will still be dogs ...

1. Here we can define A to be a {set\class\group\bunch} of apples,
   ​
   A {set} of apples + A {set} of apples = A {set} of apples.
   ​
   and A+A = A
   ​
   divide by A and (as long as A ≠0) we get
   ​
   1 + 1 = 1
   ​
2. and we can define B ≠ A to be a different {set\class\group\bunch} of objects, say oranges,
   ​
   B {set} of oranges + B {set} of oranges = B {set} of oranges.
   ​
   and B+B = B
   ​
   divide by B and (as long as B ≠0) we get
   ​
   1 + 1 = 1
   ​
3. And A ≠ B because
   ​
   A {set} of apples + B {set} of oranges ≠ A {set} of apples
   ​
   (this also confirms B {set} of oranges ≠ zero, so we don't have B+B = B becoming 0+0 = 0 this time)
   ​
   A {set} of apples + B {set} of oranges ≠ B {set} of oranges
   ​
   (and this confirms A {set} of apples ≠ zero, so we don't have A+A = A becoming 0+0 = 0 this time either)
   ​
   * what we have here is
   ​
   A{set} of apples + notA{set} of oranges = not{A{set} or notA{set}} *
   ​
4. because A ≠ B -and- A ≠ 0 -and- B ≠ 0 we don't have a special condition,
   ​
   and we can generalize the results to say
   ​
   1 + 1 ≡ 1
   ​
   * 1 + not(1) = neither 1 nor not(1) *
   ​
   based on these a priori assumptions

1. The results derived from the a priori assumptions are:
   1. 1 + 1 ≡ 1
   2. * 1 + not(1) = neither 1 nor not(1) *
2. They are true as long as the a priori assumptions are assumed to be true
3. Without the a priori assumptions they are not necessarily true
4. You cannot validate the the a priori assumptions by working backwards from the derived results and principles based on the a priori assumptions.

Because these result 1a is proven, we can have Absolute Confidence in the mathematic conclusions contained within the "blue" area defined by A Priori Assumptions B - that A+A = A and B+B = B and A ≠B.III. Extending the conclusions outside their "blue" areas:We have absolute confidence in the results of A Priori Assumptiona A within the "blue" area defined by the A Priori Assumptions A:

• 0 + 1 = 1 and
• 1 + 1 ≠ 1

AND we have absolute confidence in the results of A Priori Assumptions B within the "blue" area defined by the A Priori Assumptions B:

• 1 + 1 ≡ 1
• * 1 + not(1) = neither 1 nor not(1) *

If these results apply outside their respective "blue" areas, then we have: and because both cannot be true outside their respective blue areas at the same time, we have an irreconcilable, unavoidable contradiction. &there4 The results are dependent on the definitions or a priori assumptions, and the definitions or a priori assumptions are NOT proven by the internal consistency and proven results of the maths that are based on the a priori assumptions. That would be circular reasoning. Absolute confidence inside a blue area does not translate into any confidence outside the blue area.Is there some aspect of this that prevents you from agreeing with it? yes or noNow we move on to: First, I want to compare these statements to ones I make in Message 161 (which are also in Message 123):

quote:

---

When we come to the confidence we can have in this basic foundational assumption of science, it is the confidence that comes from the massive mountain ranges of tested data that all appear to work together to produce a cohesive, consilient and comprehensive picture\map\description that is massively cross-connected and interlocked.

​

If the evidence is a lie, then it is an extremely, extraordinarily, well constructed lie, but none the less ... this is always a possibility.

---

I think you will agree that they are substantially similar: yes or noThe significant difference that I see is that you assume you can backflush confidence in the initial assumption from the evidence derived from it, whereas I do not.The proofs given above carry over into logic used in science: the reason I do not, and why you can not, backflush confidence in the initial assumption/s, from the high confidence derived from testing based on the assumption, is that this high confidence dissappears if you do not make the initial assumption. If you assume that evidence is, or may be, a lie, then you cannot derive any scientific confidence it the validity of any measurement, test or observation. In fact you cannot make any conclusions, because any piece of information or evidence could be false.

quote:

---

​

Science assumes that objective evidence represents reality, and thus it is within the blue area.

​

Everything outside the blue area is the reason that science must be tentative, no matter how strong the confidence we can have in a theory, because it is possible that objective evidence lies and does not represent reality.

---

Internal consistency, no matter how cohesive, consilient, comprehensive and massively cross-connected and interlocked the developed picture\map\description is, it cannot say anything about what lies outside the blue area.What we CAN legitimately say is that BUT: we cannot say anything about whether or not the evidence actually is a lie with any confidence -- it is assumed that it is not a lie, there is no evidence for this assumption being true or false, and thus it necessarily sits at the zero confidence level.Is there some aspect of this that prevents you from agreeing with it? yes or noEnjoy

---

* items added by edit marked thus *
Notes:
⁽¹⁾ - know with scientific tentativityEdited by Zen Deist, : minor adds, don't affect current non-replyEdited by Zen Deist, : *Edited by Zen Deist, : vs changed to *AND* for syntax (yes there is a sin tax) plus some minor edits -- does not affect the non-response type replies.Edited by Zen Deist, : language correction

LOL. Very good.That should keep him busy for awhile. LOL.Edited by xongsmith, : No reason given.

It is a rather long-winded evasion, isn't it ?

These pen dropping tests you did - They necessarily came well after the prediction you made in the actual scenario put to you in Message 147. I suggest you read it again. So unless you are claiming precogniscience your subsequent tests are of little consequence to your pseudoskeptical conclusion made before the event. Any wally can know their "predictions" are correct if they don't make any "predictions" until after the event has occurred. Neither you nor RAZD has been able to explicitly state a position on the actual existence of Voldermort in terms of rejecting the untestable "Hogwarts Hypothesis". Until you do so your position is frankly untenable. Will you unequivocally agree that (at least) a 6 position is rationally justified despite this proposition being untestable? The Dumbledore magic mind manipulation proposition is as follows: Dumbledore magically implanted JK Rowling with knowledge of Harry Potter's real adventures in such a way that even the author herself thinks that her writings are works of fiction when in fact they are magically inspired historical accounts. The "Hogwarts Hypothesis" as the secret cult of Potter call it. There is no objective empirical evidence that falsifies this proposition. You have done no tests. Indeed it is untestable.If we can all agree that this proposition can be rationally and robustly rejected regardless of being untestable maybe we can finally put to bed this insidious notion that testing untestable propositions has any bearing on the validity of scientific theories or rational conclusions.

See Message 163.Until you can explicitly state that the untestable Dumbledore mind manipulation proposition is worthy of a 6 on your little scale what is the point in talking to you?Until you do I can only conclude that you are either a nutjob or a dishonest debater. If you want to know what I am claiming I suggest you read what I have said re axioms/a-priori assumptions. Message 42Rather than subjectively picking and choosing which baseless but untestable propositions can be rejected, which need be assumed a-priori and which demand your brand of absolute agnosticism why not take the scientific approach and treat all such propositions equally and consistently?

Consistency is fine in moderation and in some areas such as science, but insistence on consistency in much of life simply diminishes and denigrates the experience.

Well Mr Applied Scientist - When we have competing explanations how do we decide which explanation most accurately describes reality? By seeing which one makes the most accurate and reliable predictions.So, whether you realise it or not, even as an applied scientist, you are in the business of applying scientific theories that have proven themselves as descriptions of reality which are "correct enough" descriptions of reality for the job at hand (e.g. Newtonian mechanics)For example - I challenge you to successfully apply Aristotelian notions of elements to whatever scientific task it is you are currently undertaking. Apparently you are willing to simply and unthinkingly put the numbers into the equations and reap the benefits of those who have actually sought to explain and understand the world.I know lots of professional scientists. And I can assure you that this is not the approach taken by any of them. Well I utterly agree that the 1 second universe proposition can be rationally rejected as baseless nonsense even before being tested. Because I reject ALL such evidentially baseless notions as "very improbable" on the same basis.However you have previously told me that there are all sorts of equally baseless things (e.g. Last Thursdayism) that I cannot reject in this way.So I have no idea how you are rejecting some and demanding RAZDian style agnosticism towards others?

I am sure that my appreciation of art is very inconsistent.But this has nothing to do with scientific knowledge.

Because it depends on where you're comming from...In a colloquial or philisophical sense, reject away. In a scientific sense, not so much.

But science rejects all such propositions.See Message 42

I disagree. It doesn't really reject any of them because it doesn't really address any of them. Using Newtonian Mechanics to calculate the amount of time that it will take for your pen to fall to your desk is not a rejection of us all living in the Matrix. Its totally irrelavant and unmentioned and not cared about at all.You seem to want to call that a rejection for some reason...