|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Nature of Scepticism | |||||||||||||||||||||||
kofh2u Member (Idle past 3848 days) Posts: 1162 From: phila., PA Joined: |
...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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
kofh2u writes:
No, I'm pointing out that the existence of "Truth" is irrelevant. Only what we can model matters.
You are trying to confuse the existence of Truth with the ability for man to model it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kofh2u Member (Idle past 3848 days) Posts: 1162 From: phila., PA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kofh2u Member (Idle past 3848 days) Posts: 1162 From: phila., PA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kofh2u Member (Idle past 3848 days) Posts: 1162 From: phila., PA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kofh2u Member (Idle past 3848 days) Posts: 1162 From: phila., PA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kofh2u Member (Idle past 3848 days) Posts: 1162 From: phila., PA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kofh2u Member (Idle past 3848 days) Posts: 1162 From: phila., PA Joined: |
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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kofh2u Member (Idle past 3848 days) Posts: 1162 From: phila., PA Joined: |
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024