LindaLou responds to me:
quote:
Still insisting on applying the scientific method to metaphysics?
What's wrong with that? What is the problem with applying the hypothesize-test-rework process to questions of philosophy? Yes, the scientific method is a philosophy itself, but logic is also philosophical and we use logic in philosophy all the time.
You seem to be implying that the method can only be utilized on things that can be put in a test tube.
quote:
But the scientific method is more problematic.
Why? Why is insisting on solid definitions that must interact in logical ways that are then tested, observed, and refined "problematic"? Shouldn't we apply that concept to most everything we do? I'm hardly saying that everything is scientific. I'm simply saying that the concept of testing our assumptions to see how they fail and making adjustments based upon those observations is about as far as "problematic" as can get.
Science can't say that something is "music" for that is purely subjective. But just because it can't tell you if you'd think a certain acoustic waveform is music, it can be used to describe it once you've made your subjective determination. It's the basis for
Pandora: Musical styles have traits and if you find certain pieces of music good, then other pieces of music that share those traits are more likely to be considered good.
So no, not everything is science, but there is no reason not to approach any question through a "science-like" method.
quote:
By the way, while mathematics is logical, it is also a language for describing reality; and like the words we use, it can be used to make both true and false propositions while maintaining its internal logic.
Well, no. No, it can't. That's the point behind consistency: You cannot make both true and false propositions. And please, let us not hear anybody pipe up with Godel. Unless you can quote to me the specific theorem in its symbolic format, I can pretty much guarantee that you don't understand what he was saying.
quote:
That's beside the point though.
No, it isn't. It's a symptom of the entire point: You want your personal feelings and capriciousness to be functionally equivalent to observation and rigor. And one way to do that is to cast observation and rigor as something worthless. That paying attention to what you're doing and examining it, testing it, trying to duplicate it, is somehow anathema to "real" understanding.
There's a cartoon I saw from
XKCD about the difference between normal people and scientists. A normal person will see a lever, get zapped by lightning, and respond with, "I'm never doing that again!" A scientist will see a lever, get zapped by lightning, and respond with, "I wonder if that happens every time?"
quote:
Am I supposed to be chastened by your alleged superior knowledge of the subjects?
Oh, for crying out loud. This isn't about me. You don't know me from Adam and I couldn't care less what you think about me. My "alleged superior knowledge" can be simply acquired by you: Read the books. Step away from the computer, go to the library, pick up a book, and read it. None of this is sacred knowledge that only the priests are allowed to see.
We'll still be here when you come back, but we won't have to start from scratch and turn this place into remedial philosophy. I not only cannot type in the entire Discourses, it would be highly inappropriate for me to do so.
quote:
I asked you before if you would care to share anything that seems pertinent to this particular topic. Curiously, little seems to be forthcoming.
Huh? I give you reference after reference and somehow it is my fault that you haven't bothered to do your homework and read them?
I can't make you read, LindaLou. I cannot do your homework for you.
Now let me see if I understand your entire argument: If I say something, you're response is to chastise me for expecting you to believe me just because I say it. But if I direct you to the original sources that aren't me, you're going to complain that I'm not telling it to you directly.
You don't get to have it both ways. Now, since I don't want you to accept things just because I say so, this means that you need to get off your ass and put forth some effort to educate yourself on the subject you would like to have a discussion about.
quote:
Last I checked, the dictionary was handy for defining terms.
Last I checked, dictionaries were descriptive, not proscriptive. It is the same "But the dictionary says!" stupidity that has creationists try to claim that evolution is just a guess because the word "theory" can be defined that way.
quote:
Defining terms is pretty important in a discussion don't you think?
They have been. But now you're trying to play a game of equivocation.
quote:
Curiously, this particular example refers to the question of whether these nouns are physical entities or abstract concepts.
Huh? We're talking about the difference between reality and fantasy and how one might distinguish the two.
quote:
Am I detecting a hint of a materialist prejudice here?
Not at all. What you're detecting is a hint of rigor. The things that you are testing don't have to be sitting in front of you. Again, you seem to be implying that science can only apply to things in test tubes.
quote:
How do you test concepts against reality if there is no empirical evidence for those concepts?
That's the entire point! If you don't have any evidence, by what chutzpah do you dare proclaim that they exist?
You seem to be claiming that this complete lack of evidence is a common state when the exact opposite is true. There is a plethora of evidence around: The model works.
So why are you insisting chocolate sprinkles? What is your justification for saying that something is missing?
quote:
Can the scientific method get us out of problems like solipsism? No.
Cartesian Doubt? Are you seriously running back to that? How many times must it be rejected before you drop it?
But yes, the scientific method can get us out of solipsism because things happen outside of our awareness and are then brought into it. And can be done so reliably and against our will.
quote:
But the being-ness or essence of something is more than its physical characteristics. Unless you think like a materialist.
Or unless I demand that you show justification for why there is something missing. The model works. Why are demanding chocolate sprinkles? Where is your evidence that something is missing?
quote:
Exactly what model are you referring to in this instance?
Whatever one you want. If you're not going to be specific about what you're talking about, why should you expect anybody else to be?
Burden of proof is on the one making the claim. You're the one claiming that there is something missing. It would be nice if you woudl provide the justification for why this is so.
quote:
Maybe because I'm open to the possibility that it is there.
Where is your evidence? The model seems to be working without it. All the stuff we have examined seems to be accountable for everything, so where is the justification that something more is needed?
Obviously, we haven't observed everything. That is impossible. We're quite likely wrong about a lot of things. That's how we progress in our understanding of the world around us. But until you have evidence that we have made a mistake, that there is something missing, that the actual outcome is different from the expected outcome, why would we demand that the working model actually doesn't?
quote:
If you think we can be sure to any degree that it isn't there, then you need to support your claim with evidence.
I have. What part of "the model works" are you having trouble with? Is there an actual result that isn't jibing with the expected result? That's evidence that there's something up.
Where is your evidence? The model works. Why do you demand chocolate sprinkles? Where is your evidence that something is missing?
quote:
If this is impossible to do, then the rational position is agnosticism.
(*blink!*) If it is impossible to show the existence of something, then the rational position is agnosticism? That makes no sense. If it is impossible to show its existence, then the only rational conclusion is that it isn't there. A difference that makes no difference is no difference. If the model works just fine without it, what possible reason is there to consider it being there since it contributes absolutely nothing?
quote:
Because the first question is one about the nature of reality, for which there is little or no empirical evidence.
Huh? You mean all the other gods that have come before have no bearing on the case for how we should consider this new one? Do you not understand that the non-existence of an expected result is actual evidence?
quote:
The second question is rooted in a known physical reality which is easily investigated.
Why does the "ease" of investigation have any bearing? Why are we incapable of examining this "god" object of yours? If it is incapable of being examined, then how on earth can you claim that it exists? Even in a "maybe" stance? The model seems to work just fine without it. And if you cannot tell the difference between the model without it and this new model that requires it, what possible justification is there to claim that it is there?
quote:
You don't seem to like Cartesian Doubt much, but you haven't explained what your particular problem with it is.
Because it has been disproven. The idea that we are simply "plagued by demons" is not borne out by reality. Have you read Descartes' description and subsequent rejection? Have you done your homework? Have you stepped away from here and put some effort into learning something that you haven't bothered to investigate before?
Have you ever bothered to invistigate Descartes' conclusion? "I think, therefore I am." What might that mean? After all, if the demons are controlling everything, how is it that you are aware of any of it?
Why are you so resistant to picking up the original material and reading it? Don't take my word for it. You're only going to whine that it came from me.
quote:
He only "didn't hold truck with it" because it made him feel uncomfortable, and he used God as a get-out clause.
Then you clearly haven't read his discussion of it. Yes, the Discourses eventually goes to try and prove the existence of god, but the question of Descartes' existence in the first place had nothing to do with divinity and everything to do with natural philosophy.
Seriously: Go and read the book. I can't reduce it into a sound bite for you. This isn't something that comes easy. You have to put in the effort to read the whole thing.
quote:
I'm not sure what your question above has to do with anything; it's just another example of the problem Descartes had with trying to find something that is 100% certain.
Since you haven't read him, how can you tell? The evidence is there, but you are actively ignoring it for some reason. You seem to want me to tell you but then you'll simply whine that it's just me saying it. So stop depending on me to do your homework and do it for yourself.
Suppose you are being plagued by demons who control your entire sensory input so that you are not experiencing reality but rather a perfect simulation of reality. Fine...so what are the demons working upon? What is it they are not controlling? What part of this "perfect illusion" has been left out that cannot possibly be an illusion but is actually evidence of a reality that truly exists?
What on earth do you think, "I think, therefore I am" means?
So now that we know that you do exist, how does that fact apply to everything else? So you do exist, but the demons are still plaguing you. Is it ever possible for you to find that out? Is it at all possible to escape from the illusion? If not, then how does that illusion differ from actual reality? A difference that makes no difference is no difference. Why add the complications of a set of demons making you think everything exists absolutely perfectly without any errors when actual reality accomplishes the same thing?
quote:
Pardon? When did I ever claim that this is the case?
You're the one introducing solipsism. You did bother to look up what that meant before you said it, yes? Solipsism is the idea that your mind is the only thing that exists, and thus all the reality that you experience is nothing more than an illusion...a sophisticated simulation of reality.
quote:
Firstly, you are contradicting your original Wikipedia source which said that the null hypothesis is the "status quo," which is different.
Huh? Solipsism is rejected. Your mind is not the only thing that exists. There is a reality out there. That is the status quo. Thus, the null hypothesis starts from here because that is the model that we have. It works.
Where is your justification that it doesn't? Have you done any research into the question? Have you bothered to read any of the myriad treatises on what Descartes called "first philosophy"? Anything on epistemology?
quote:
Secondly, how do you know what's real and what isn't?
Nice try, but that's my question to you. The way I know what is real and what isn't is by examination. How do you do it? Wishing makes it so? Clap your hands hard enough and Tinkerbell really lives?
quote:
Have you suddenly obtained omniscience or enlightenment?
(*chuckle*) Compared to you?
quote:
Maybe you'd care to read the OP again?
You mean the one with which I disagree? The one whose fundamental premise is flawed and fails upon the most casual examination? The one that RAZD has spent at least three threads avoiding every single direct question put to him?
quote:
I can see how it would make you closer to "wrong" than someone who took the agnostic position.
Huh? How does ignoring evidence ever make you "closer to 'right'" than someone who actually looks at the evidence, sees that the model works without this unevidenced, undetectable, incapable of even being defined for crying out loud object and responds that it doesn't exist until you show evidence that it does?
The model works. Why do you deman chocolate sprinkles? Where is your evidence that something is missing?
quote:
I can see that it's nonsensical when we're talking about what constitutes the nature of reality itself and we have no empirical evidence to go on.
Huh? Why do you deny all the evidence around you? Are you saying that it is impossible to ever show evidence for god? Then how on earth can it possibly change anything? How does an object that doesn't actually do anything get to be declared as something that exists? Even hypothetically?
A difference that makes no difference is no difference.
quote:
Are you even willing to concede the possibility that there may be things that exist for which we don't currently have any empirical evidence?
What makes you think we don't have any emprical evidence? Where is this fantasy land you live in that is completely blank?
quote:
Really? Where do you see evidence for or against the existence of the divine?
In the examination of their traits and finding that the expected result isn't there. That's evidence.
quote:
"Absence of evidence" does not itself constitute evidence.
Of course not, but absence of results is evidence.
quote:
How can you be anything else in the absence of evidence?
Because there is no absence of evidence. There is a mountain of it. You're just ignoring it because you don't like what it means for your philosophy.
The model works. That's the evidence. So why do you demand chocolate sprinkles? Where is your evidence that something is missing? What actual result deviates from the expected result?
quote:
If you'd used the word "atheistic" instead of "agnostic" in your first sentence, as some others have done here, then this would have been another lightbulb moment.
Except it wouldn't have made any sense. Just as your insistence upon "agnosticism" makes no sense. How can you have any position, even one of "not knowing" about nothing?
Rrhain
Thank you for your submission to
Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
™ Version 4.2
