The Nature of Scepticism

Yeah, I can see how that was confusing. I was attempting to stress that the observation "really was" objective and validated. I didn't mean to imply that it was "indisputably accurate of reality."
I was trying to dissuade this sort of rebuttal: But that didn't work out, anyway... I don't like this... because it can imply that the objective conclusion isn't there anymore, or is no longer objective or something like that.
I was thinking of it more like this:Let's say we have a scenario (any scenario, it doesn't matter).Sally is a separate entity from us... she makes her own conclusion about what to do.
Joel is a separate entity from us... he makes his own conclusion about what to do.
"The objective evidence" is a separate entity from us... from it, we can all objectively derive what "the objective conclusion" is about what to do.Now, we have our decision to make... what are we going to do about the scenario?We can decide to accept Sally's conclusion and do that.
We can decide to accept Joel's conclusion and do that.
We can decide to accept "the objective conclusion" and do that.
Or, we can make up our own conclusion and then do that.Whatever we decide... it doesn't matter.Sally's conclusion still exists, Joels conclusion still exists and "the objective conclusion" still exists.
And... "the objective conclusion" is never "an opinion," regardless of whether or not we accept it as our own final action for what-to-do, or for what reasons we use. As it's derived from whatever objective evidence is available for the scenario.That's what I mean when I say "the objective conclusion" ...a possible objective course-of-action that we may or may not decide to accept. I never meant to say that "we have a conclusion" regarding "the objective conclusion."
Even if we decide to wait around for more data... "the objective conclusion" is still there, providing us an option for what to do if we ever wanted to "follow the evidence."The entire discussion is extremely confusing.
There are many different "mid-points" and aspects. Each with their own area that may be based on evidence or may be an opinion.It is difficult to parse when someone says "That's an opinion!" Well... what is? That the objective evidence is currently leading in this direction? No, it's not... that's objective. It may very well be opinion to choose to follow the evidence at any given point in time... but that doesn't turn the objective evidence into an opinion at all, regardless of there being 1 objective observation or many.That's what I'm getting at. From reading RAZDs statements... he seemed to be saying that the conclusion of my example that "there was no wolf when the boy cried wolf" was an opinion. This just isn't true. That's the conclusion that the objective evidence points towards. That's not opinion, that's simply following the evidence.Although, if he meant to say that if we choose to accept that conclusion... then yes, I agree that the "act of choosing" such a conclusion is indeed an opinion. However... it's not valid to say that "that conclusion" is opinion.There is a minor difference there... but I think it is significant in the process of science.
I think it's significant to be able to identify that "objective" doesn't mean "always the right choice."
I think it's significant to identify where opinion is specifically used and when it's being mis-labelled.I think these things are significant because if overly abused... they can lead to corrupt thinking. That is... if someone thinks that our current understanding of planetary motion is "objective"... they are correct. However, if they think that because it is objective then it is a "correct understanding of reality"... then they're just wrong. It's not a correct understanding of reality. It's possible things may change drastically in the future. It's possible our understanding is only "good enough" for the scales we've been looking at and we're missing some minute details that do make a difference in other situations. There are many possibilities that we may learn more in the future and change our current understanding.I think people understand these concepts... but it can be difficult to see how they apply directly to each and every "objective" situation. But they absolutely do apply to each and every observation of reality we make, and I think it's important enough to clarify. I also think it's why RAZD doesn't understand the mistakes he's making when he talks about bluegenes' argument in their Great Debate... He can't accept that "objective" doesn't mean "correct about reality" because it leads directly into bluegenes' ideas.Unfortuantely, "objective" has never meant "correct about reality." All it means is we have a bunch of people agreeing on the observation... so we think this gives us confidence that we are onto something. But there's nothing concrete about any of it. Because we don't know enough about reality in order to judge if anything actually is "correct."Sorry... ranted. This was supposed to be a short, quick reply

I think it's fair as well, in normal speaking terms.
It's just not fair to say when speaking in philosophy of science terms. Which I think is pretty much what this discussion is about.
In this ball-game, we need to be specific.This all goes back to Message 194 where 1.61803 said: The problem we are initially faced with (before science was as popular as it is now) is: how are we able to make reliable predictions about the future?
The hurdle in our way is that all we are able to get are objective observations of the present and/or past (stupid linear time! Got us again!).This then leaves us with induction to make predictions about the future.
The problem, of course, is that no amount of past repetition actually forces any event in the future.
This is an important concept to remember.
This is what I'm referring to when I'm talking about past observations vs. future observations.The issue (in philosophy) is that if we know that we're relying on an inductive process... and we know that the inductive process isn't reliable... then why the hell are we doing any of it?The practical answer is, of course: Because it works. It's not perfect, but it's pretty awesome and gets results.But, this answer isn't "good enough" for the pedants who want a more stable basis for their "philosophy of science" and know why they're doing the things they're doing. Why does this process work?This is where Mr. Karl Popper's solution comes into play.Karl Popper turns the idea around on it's head.
He says the point isn't to "make predictions about the future..." That's just an emergent property.
He says that the point of science is to see what we're able to see.We make objective observations about the past and present because we know we can do this in reality.
We can organize those objective observations to create objective conclusions (organized patterns of the data) and see what they tell us.Then... if someone is so inclined that they want to use this data to make a prediction of the future... then that's their prerogative and good luck with all that.Practically... I agree that it's basically the same thing and it doesn't really make a difference how you view it... as long as you get to make the predictions and follow the evidence... what else matters?The philosophical point is that... if you follow the "old school way"... where our knowledge of the past is actually predicting the future... and we know that the reasoning and the prediction itself are both unreliable... then you can start making up all sorts of bullshit reasons to reject all of science if you wanted to. This sort of thinking can be used in a political theatre to control which "science" is to be accepted and which is to be rejected... and it can then be corrupted just as religion was abused so long ago.However... if you follow Popper's way of thinking... then our observations aren't doing any predictions at all. Therefore... the observations are nothing more than that... they're just "observations," just "data."From here... the objective conclusion is always an emergent property from the objective data. It doesn't matter if we want to do what it says or not... it says what it says. When days, months, years go by and all data we receive continues to match the objective conclusion (or the objective conclusion explains all the data...) we end up with a very convincing conclusion. No one is saying "I can predict the future!" you're now just saying "see? see? See how every additional observation matches what my data says it will? You can toss me and my ideas about the future out whenever they start coming out wrong!" Which has a much stronger defense against any political theatre trying to corrupt the system.Now... going back to your basketball example and calling it "indicative of reality":Popper's way of thinking can be reduced back even farther. Popper's saying it doesn't matter if the predictions are reliable or not, as long as our objective evidence exists. Well... it also doesn't matter if the objective evidence is reliable or not... as long as it is, indeed objective. That is... if the objective evidence is ever not indicative of reality for whatever reason (poor equipment... poor methodology... whatever...) such a thing will become apparent as an emergent property by more and more objective evidence.Therefore, it's important to be clear that "verified objective evidence" is not "indicative of reality." Or, at least... that's not the point of collecting the objective evidence.If we think it is indicative of reality... then we can end up following this slippery slope towards thinking our objective conclusions/predictions are actually also indicative of the future... and then we end up with no firm basis to rest our ideas upon because induction is unreliable!.Therefore, it is important to remember that "verified objective evidence" is only what it is... objective evidence (the best we can obtain due to our limitations with reality).Whether or not it's actually indicative of reality is entirely irrelevant. Such an issue will be dealt with as we pile on more and more and better and better objective evidence.Whether or not the objective conclusion (future predictions) are indicative of reality is also entirely irrelevant. Similarly, such an issue will become overwhelmingly apparent as we pile on more and more and better and better objective evidence (as results become more data).This provides us with firm reasoning for why our model of using objective evidence to guide our decisions about the future works so well.
It also shows very clearly where and how the errors are created (data that we only think is indicative of reality can slip in... the assumption you want to make about the basketball).The thing is... we always "think" our data is indicative of reality (when we obtain it honestly, anyway...).
But, we have no way to "know" whether or not this is actually true.
Therefore... if we assume that our data is indicative of reality... we end up basing our model on unreliable assumptions that will (eventually) be shown to be unreliable... this can put a dent in everyone's confidence of using science in the first place.However, if we don't care whether or not our data is "indicative of reality," and still obtain it in the same objective, honest manner...
Then we can see where the data leads us.
And we now know exactly what we're basing everything on... the objective data we honestly obtain.
Sometimes this ends up in wrong ideas. But the thing that lets us know that is... more data.
This way everything about the system is reliant on the data... the way science is supposed to be.It is a slight change in the way we think of the process (philosophy of science)... but it has significant ramifications.

Heh.. I didn't know you were still following along. I thought you left I agree... as long as we're strictly sticking to the example you provided.
That is... this is the first time we heard the cry such that there's no past observations of the cry being wrong...Once we add things like past observations or other information... the situation changes and therefore the outcome changes.I don't see, however, the point you're trying to make? (Or maybe you haven't gotten to your point yet?)I'm guessing that you'd like me to say what I think the objective conclusion should be?
If so... I'm finding it difficult to identify the objective conclusion from your example.What is the objective data?Obviously... we have a cry in the distance: "Wolf! Wolf! Wolf!"
If this is all we have to go on... then I suppose the objective conclusion would be "There is a wolf in the distance (where the cry came from...)" Wouldn't you agree?
Are you assuming any other objective data? Obviously, if "the objective data" included a bunch of past occasions and there was never a wolf there... then the objective conclusion would change accordingly.From just the "Wolf! Wolf! Wolf!" data, though... the objective conclusion would dictate that we get up and see what's happening.
And then I would use my opinion/experience/skepticism to accept that this is the best choice available.
I do agree, though... that your other logic (that may or may not be based on "the objective conclusion") is also valid and makes for a good decision in this method. The same decision, actually... just for different reasons Before I saw this post, I wrote a Summary of my Argument to Catholic Scientist in Message 268.
I think that's the first time I put down all the thoughts I've collected over the course of this thread in a nicely coherent post. (Or essay... sigh, such is my long-assed writing style...)Feel free to pick a point there, it may have made things easier to identify if you see a flaw in my reasoning.

Just had an idea about what you may be trying to get at.You offered some reasoning for your own conclusion: I agree that this is a valid approach to the situation.
It's just not "following the evidence." It's more "following the benefit."I'm not saying that "the objective conclusion" is always the best conclusion (I'm not trying to claim anything about it's validity at this point).I am, however, saying that "the objective conclusion" does exist as a non-opinion, non-subjective, possible path-of-action as long as some objective evidence exists.Let's look at this example:I know my mom likes blue dresses.
I know my mom looks wonderful in blue dresses.
I know my mom likes red dresses.
I know my mom looks horrible in red dresses.
I know my mom has a very fragile ego (poor thing!) My mom is deciding to wear a red dress or a blue dress.
She puts on the blue dress (and, again, looks wonderful) and aske me: "How do I look?"
I reply "You look wonderful!"
She puts on the red dress (and, again, looks horrible) and asks me: "How do I look?"Now... "the objective evidence" tells us that the red dress looks horrible on my mom.
Therefore, "the objective conclusion" is for me to say to my mom: "You look horrible."
This conclusion will, of course, crush my mom and make her cry.I end up telling her it's really nice, just not as nice as the blue one... she chooses the blue one and heads out for her night on the town.I did not follow the evidence.
I did not accept "the objective conclusion."
I used my concern of my mom's well being to lead me to say something else (as you said... perhaps I chose depending on "the most benefit" or something).This doesn't change the fact that "the objective conclusion" was, and still is... that my mom looked horrible when she put on the red dress.
This doesn't change the fact that "the objective conclusion" is, indeed, objective and not an opinion.I certainly do agree that there are many other factors involved when making a decision.
I also agree that "our choice" to accept the objective conclusion (or not) as our course of action is, in itself, an opinion.