Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Nature of Scepticism
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3819 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 136 of 271 (692269)
03-01-2013 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by ringo
03-01-2013 10:59 AM


Re: Absolute Truth is an oxymoron...
...the scientific method can only approach "truth".
(so...?)
It can devise an image that resembles reality more and more closely but the image can never be reality.
(So...?)
Thus, it makes no difference whether "Absolute Truth" or "Ultimate Truth" exists at all.
It is irrelevant to our understanding of reality.
You are trying to confuse the existence of Truth with the ability for man to model it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by ringo, posted 03-01-2013 10:59 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by ringo, posted 03-02-2013 10:57 AM kofh2u has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 137 of 271 (692387)
03-02-2013 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by kofh2u
03-01-2013 2:27 PM


Re: Absolute Truth is an oxymoron...
kofh2u writes:
You are trying to confuse the existence of Truth with the ability for man to model it.
No, I'm pointing out that the existence of "Truth" is irrelevant. Only what we can model matters.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by kofh2u, posted 03-01-2013 2:27 PM kofh2u has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by kofh2u, posted 03-03-2013 1:05 PM ringo has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 138 of 271 (692435)
03-03-2013 5:16 AM
Reply to: Message 133 by kofh2u
03-01-2013 10:57 AM


Re: ... Fundamentalist are those who refuse to acknowledge evidence...
Kof writes:
With that clear, we can understand that a Postulate or an Axiom is always constructed and inherent in every academic discipline.
If two different academic disciplines based on different axioms result in two mutually exclusive conclusions regarding reality how do you decide which conclusion best reflects reality?
Are all axioms equal or are some more equal than others?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by kofh2u, posted 03-01-2013 10:57 AM kofh2u has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by kofh2u, posted 03-03-2013 1:12 PM Straggler has replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3819 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 139 of 271 (692450)
03-03-2013 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by ringo
03-02-2013 10:57 AM


Re: Absolute Truth is an oxymoron...
No, I'm pointing out that the existence of "Truth" is irrelevant. Only what we can model matters.
It mattered to Neanderthal man who went extinct because of his inability to see the Truth.
That prevented him from adapting to the changing environment.
It matters to us now, too.
As we rise in numbers and misuse the resources on Earth to over capacity, a massive avalanche of evolutionary change is building up and a New Heaven and New Earth is about to slide down in place of the false world view we are still living inside:
If man does not start to model the Truth that exists in spite of his ignorance, the Facts-of-Life will matter very very much.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by ringo, posted 03-02-2013 10:57 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by ringo, posted 03-05-2013 11:20 AM kofh2u has not replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3819 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 140 of 271 (692451)
03-03-2013 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by Straggler
03-03-2013 5:16 AM


Re: ... Fundamentalist are those who refuse to acknowledge evidence...
If two different academic disciplines based on different axioms result in two mutually exclusive conclusions regarding reality how do you decide which conclusion best reflects reality?
Are all axioms equal or are some more equal than others?
Usually when in the course of scientific investigation we find the paradox of conflicting theories, we return to those axioms which were assumed true, and revise, alter, change, or study them with the suspicion that one or he other, or both are actually not true at all.
An example would be the idea that Euclidean Geometry explains the real world.
The Reality is that Euclidean Geometry explains only the macro-cosmos which is on a level of understanding different from the Space/Time relative to us otherwise, and elsewhere.
In that domain, Reinmann Geometry reigns over what we can discover about Reality in that dimension.
And, of course, these facts of life are just what Reality actual is.
Take it or leave it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Straggler, posted 03-03-2013 5:16 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by Straggler, posted 03-03-2013 2:48 PM kofh2u has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 141 of 271 (692459)
03-03-2013 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by kofh2u
03-03-2013 1:12 PM


Re: ... Fundamentalist are those who refuse to acknowledge evidence...
Kof writes:
An example would be the idea that Euclidean Geometry explains the real world.
That Euclidian geometry describes the real world was never an axiom. And Euclidian geometry is no less axiomatically or mathematically true/proven for not being an accurate description of the real world is it?
Kof writes:
Usually when in the course of scientific investigation we find the paradox of conflicting theories, we return to those axioms which were assumed true, and revise, alter, change, or study them with the suspicion that one or he other, or both are actually not true at all.
Can you give a non-mathematical example of axioms used in scientific investigation?
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by kofh2u, posted 03-03-2013 1:12 PM kofh2u has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by kofh2u, posted 03-03-2013 3:22 PM Straggler has replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3819 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 142 of 271 (692462)
03-03-2013 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by Straggler
03-03-2013 2:48 PM


Re: ... Fundamentalist are those who refuse to acknowledge evidence...
Can you give a non-mathematical example of axioms used in scientific investigation?
Cause and Effect is the major axiom isn't it?
Our theories are all based upon the axiom that there is always a Cause for every effect.
But, before that axiom, the "excuse" that a First Cause be Postualted, (axiom), and agreed to as an exception is required.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Straggler, posted 03-03-2013 2:48 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by Straggler, posted 03-03-2013 3:59 PM kofh2u has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 143 of 271 (692463)
03-03-2013 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by kofh2u
03-03-2013 3:22 PM


Re: ... Fundamentalist are those who refuse to acknowledge evidence...
On one hand you are asserting that we use axioms to discern that which is true. On the other hand you seem to be suggesting that we can reject some axioms because they turn out to result in conclusions that are demonstrably not true.
This seems somewhat contradictory doesn't it?
Kof writes:
Our theories are all based upon the axiom that there is always a Cause for every effect.
But cause and effect is itself derived from observation. It's not necessary to treat it as an axiom. Indeed both relativity and QM have asked serious questions of our notions of causality.
I don't think you have thought this through sufficiently.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by kofh2u, posted 03-03-2013 3:22 PM kofh2u has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by kofh2u, posted 03-03-2013 7:09 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 145 by kofh2u, posted 03-03-2013 7:14 PM Straggler has replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3819 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 144 of 271 (692478)
03-03-2013 7:09 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by Straggler
03-03-2013 3:59 PM


Re: ... Fundamentalist are those who refuse to acknowledge evidence...
On one hand you are asserting that we use axioms to discern that which is true. On the other hand you seem to be suggesting that we can reject some axioms because they turn out to result in conclusions that are demonstrably not true.
This seems somewhat contradictory doesn't it?
You donot seemto know what an axiom is.
An axiom is something which seems true but has never been proven, and appears unprovable.
So people can agree to accept that unproven idea as the basis for developing other ideas which WOULD be true if and only if the prime axioms are ACTUALLY true.
When you digest that definition, you will be able to see how it could turn out that the initial belief in that basic axiom was misplaced.
An excellent example is Ptolemy's explanation for the Solar System, based upon the false Axiom that the sun rotated around the earth.
He logically and mathematically described all the movements.
His Model of the Solar System was used for almost 2000 years.
But Galileo demonstrated the axiom was false.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Straggler, posted 03-03-2013 3:59 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by Straggler, posted 03-04-2013 8:33 AM kofh2u has replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3819 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 145 of 271 (692480)
03-03-2013 7:14 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by Straggler
03-03-2013 3:59 PM


Re: ... Fundamentalist are those who refuse to acknowledge evidence...
But cause and effect is itself derived from observation.
It's not necessary to treat it as an axiom. Indeed both relativity and QM have asked serious questions of our notions of causality.
No.
I don't think you have thought this through sufficiently.
We are developing Theories through empirical observation about behaviors that we "assume" (axiom) for every Effect there must be a Cause.
Hence we point to each Cause as supporting our initial axiom.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Straggler, posted 03-03-2013 3:59 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by Straggler, posted 03-04-2013 8:17 AM kofh2u has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 146 of 271 (692502)
03-04-2013 8:17 AM
Reply to: Message 145 by kofh2u
03-03-2013 7:14 PM


Re: ... Fundamentalist are those who refuse to acknowledge evidence...
But cause and effect as perceived is, according to modern physics, the result of entropy at macroscopic scales. At quantum scales interactions are time reversible and it makes no sense to talk of causes and effects. Instead we can only talk of causality as a form of consistency when considering time reversible interactions.
According to modern physics cause and effect as perceived by us is an explicable property of our physical universe rather than some sort of metaphysical underpinning that must be assumed to be true. And at the quantum scale common notions of cause and effect get thrown out of the window anyway.
If you are treating common notions of cause and effect is an axiom then I would suggest that it is one of those axioms that should be discarded as having been found to be wanting as compared to reality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by kofh2u, posted 03-03-2013 7:14 PM kofh2u has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by kofh2u, posted 03-04-2013 12:50 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 147 of 271 (692503)
03-04-2013 8:33 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by kofh2u
03-03-2013 7:09 PM


Re: ... Fundamentalist are those who refuse to acknowledge evidence...
Kof writes:
An axiom is something which seems true but has never been proven, and appears unprovable.
On that basis one can call pretty much any old nonsense an "axiom" can't they?. It amounts to "whatever seems subjectively obvious to me"......
How does one select one's axioms? Are there any limits on what we can assume as our axioms?
Kof writes:
So people can agree to accept that unproven idea as the basis for developing other ideas which WOULD be true if and only if the prime axioms are ACTUALLY true.
If I axiomatically assume that my role in the universe is too important for it to allow me death or serious harm I can logically conclude that if I leap out of a tenth story window I will land alive and unharmed.
It's entirely internally consistent. But pointlessly wrong.
Kof writes:
When you digest that definition, you will be able to see how it could turn out that the initial belief in that basic axiom was misplaced.
If this axiomatic method of knowledge acquisition is so unreliable then the obvious question to ask is why bother with these axioms at all?
Kof writes:
But Galileo demonstrated the axiom was false.
So why not use the method Galileo used to overturn this axiom as a method of knowledge acquisition rather than messing around with axioms in the first place?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by kofh2u, posted 03-03-2013 7:09 PM kofh2u has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by kofh2u, posted 03-04-2013 11:50 AM Straggler has replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3819 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 148 of 271 (692516)
03-04-2013 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 147 by Straggler
03-04-2013 8:33 AM


Re: ... Fundamentalist are those who refuse to acknowledge evidence...
So why not use the method Galileo used to overturn this axiom as a method of knowledge acquisition rather than messing around with axioms in the first place?
?
Galileo used the axiom that "Seeing is believing," (i.e.; empiricism).
Socrates, of course, doubted that postulate and said, "Belive nothing you hear and only half of what you see."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Straggler, posted 03-04-2013 8:33 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by Straggler, posted 03-04-2013 12:31 PM kofh2u has replied
 Message 165 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-15-2013 12:08 PM kofh2u has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 149 of 271 (692520)
03-04-2013 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by kofh2u
03-04-2013 11:50 AM


Re: ... Fundamentalist are those who refuse to acknowledge evidence...
kof writes:
Galileo used the axiom that "Seeing is believing," (i.e.; empiricism).
So why did Galileo’s axiomatic conclusion trump Ptolemy’s axiomatic conclusion...?
Kof writes:
Seeing is believing
That would be nave empiricism.
If we take a more sceptical approach to seeing is believing then we arrive at a number of epistemologically derived techniques designed to improve the accuracy and reliability of our conclusions. Experimentation. Falsification. Peer review. Randomised subject selection. Double blind trials. Control groups. Hypothesis testing. Verification by means of prediction. Tentativity. Occam’s razor. The null hypothesis.
And so on and so forth.
Do you think the inclusion of such devices would add anything to the rather nave seeing is believing approach you have put forward as trumping all other axioms? How are you going to include these techniques in your axiomatic approach? Is it worth considering whether or not the whole idea of axioms has much of a role to play here at all?
Edited by Straggler, : Fix quotes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by kofh2u, posted 03-04-2013 11:50 AM kofh2u has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by kofh2u, posted 03-04-2013 12:59 PM Straggler has replied

  
kofh2u
Member (Idle past 3819 days)
Posts: 1162
From: phila., PA
Joined: 04-05-2004


Message 150 of 271 (692521)
03-04-2013 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by Straggler
03-04-2013 8:17 AM


Re: ... Fundamentalist are those who refuse to acknowledge evidence...
If you are treating common notions of cause and effect is an axiom then I would suggest that it is one of those axioms that should be discarded as having been found to be wanting as compared to reality.
Isn't that EXACTLY why Feynman says the Wave/particle observation is the fundamental issue for Physics in this next century???
"Because it demonstrates the fundamental limitation of the ability of the observer to predict experimental results, (Effects), Richard Feynman called it "a phenomenon which is impossible... to explain in any classical way, and which has in it the heart of quantum mechanics."
"In reality, it contains the only mystery," (to our premise of Cause/Effect????)
The very heart of modern physics is this threat to the initial science axiom, of Cause/Effect.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Straggler, posted 03-04-2013 8:17 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by Straggler, posted 03-04-2013 1:04 PM kofh2u has not replied
 Message 166 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-15-2013 12:14 PM kofh2u has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024