How do we decide about "things"?

What process do you use to decide if something is "true" or not?We argue a lot of what science is and is not. Let's put that aside and see if we can agree on how we know about the world and the things in it.Let's say we are shopping for a car and we find an ad for one that is half the price we expected to pay for that year and model. Do any of us mail off a cheque and then run out to pick up the car?I don't think so. For those who aren't willing to believe the ad what do you want to do next?Maybe you phone the seller? After all who else knows the car better? Is that enough to convince you?Maybe not. Maybe if you know the seller very well and trust him and know he is knowledgable about mechanices you might trust him. But then none of us knows when a used car is going to break down next.If you can't afford a large repair bill what do you do? Do you look up what is written about the reliability of the car? Do you read the manufacturer's brochures? Do you read Road and Track and Consumer Report articles?Maybe you do all those things.But.....Just maybe.....You might actually look at the car. You might even drive it. If you don't trust your own expertise to evaluate it you might take it to an independent garage and ask them to look it over. If it is very important that you get the right answer you might go to another one as well.What if one of those garages says the odometer may have been turned back. The other one isn't so sure and the seller, of course, says it definitely has NOT been.You may ask the one who suspects it has been turned back to explain what lead them to think that. They may tell you:"There are scratches on the odometer housing"Do you believe them or the seller (your friend) -- you don't have to! You look for yourself. Well, there are some odd marks but you're not an expert so you don't know for sure if they indicate tampering or not."The rubber on the pedals is worn a LOT for such low mileage"Do you believe them? You don't have to! You look for yourself.
They are very worn. But not being an expert you look at your old car and those of a few friends with varying milage. Hmmmm the pedals do seem to be warn a lot.Maybe the suspicious garage comes up with a few other things.What did you do here?You used the scientific process!!You looked for independently verifiable facts. You considered which idea they supported; real low mileage or a tampered odometer. You went with a conclusion best supprted by the facts.Will that conclustion be cast in stone? No. If you get alternate explanations for the facts you see you'll have to find out more.It is something like this that almost all of us do at one time or another. This is what "science" is.If someone thinks there is a better process for determining how likely a particular explanation for something is true I'd like to know what it is.(this should go in "Is it Science")

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

actually scrub that - I'll be on a busman's holiday.Edited by CK, : No reason given.Edited by CK, : All aboard the bus.

I think the process you describe is the only way to find out if a certain category of truth is true. Empirical truths can only be ascertained empirically."What other truths can there be" a person may ask. Well, in order for any of these empirical truths to be true, reality has to be true but there is no way to determine that in empirical fashion.It seems we just assume reality is true. Thus truth can be truth just by deciding it is. IOW: you look at the evidence and decide it is true just by the process of deciding but without empirical machinations to help you decide.

What does that mean?

---

Compassionate conservatism - bringing you a kinder, gentler torture chamber

Well, say this thing we call reality is in fact some alien kids playstation game then this computer screen is no more true that is the Me109 in my mates WWII combat simulator. All empirical truth is as true as the IPU - in the actual reality: the reality the alien kid resides in

The word "reality" was coined by humans, in order to describe their world. The metaphysical kid sitting at a playstation game might have his own meaning of "reality", but that has nothing to do with us. We live in this world, and "reality" is the word we invented to use when describing it. Whether or not it is a game on some metaphysical kid's playstation is not at all relevant.

---

Compassionate conservatism - bringing you a kinder, gentler torture chamber

nwr Most especially when the evidence we use to describe reality cannot be used to postulate anything at all about something beyond reality as a matter of definition.

all you are doing is reducing 'true' down to its proper place. Potentially, the closed system of our reality can exist within any larger reality that may exist. What is 'true' is true for us - but might not actually be true at all if there is a reality encompassing our own. The alien kids playstation game is one possibility. Our truth is not true at all. God is another possibility: in that case there might be some handshaking between our truth and truth.All our empirical decisions find their way back to the non-empirical decision that reality is true. There are no empirical foundations for this prime decision upon which all empirical decisions are based. It is just a decision on reality we make without it being empirically demonstrable. And if that decision can be made without 'science' then other decisions can be made without science

personaly it think most people most of the time do NOT reason scientifically , we all put far more trust and weight on :gut instinct
what we have done/seen /heard of ,in the past
what our peer circle agree apon
a comman held viewi think we are in fact very bad at being scientific , yes we have devised a very good set of rules that make up scientific practice .. but we are bad at following them .im sure we can all sight brilliant " scientist " who have held to a older idea in the face of new ones and have fought massive rearguard actions to defend the old idea .
equally we can point to oddball thinkers who are way out side the norm who have come up with new "truths"Taking your car buying example .. many many people will take the chance on the odometer having been change just because its that red sports car they have always wanted .....and others who will not even look hard at the car because its a certain make / version ....even with hi-tech things like pc's i know degree educated people who say .. no not that make , my friend had one and did not like it .. they will have never seen , let alone used the machine , and the friend had it 8 years ago , but still that will be the desiding factor ..no matter the review in What PC ...i think it take us a long run up to start to decide scientifically, and its amajor endurance event to follow it through to the final truth ..

yes, allow me to use your example: I want to buy a car with a very low mileage, this is essential for me in buying a car. So, if I see a car-ad that says it has a very low mileage I will take them on their word and go and buy it.Sure, in the back of my mind there's always the doubt that the seller might be lying. SO what do I do ? Well, I go regularly to this car club and I find all these other people who bought cars from this seller and they testify to me that the mileage on their cars was really low, just like the advert said.Now there are some people in the club who tell me that they bought cars from this seller and their odometers had been rolled back. There's also this garage you mentioned who can show me some of this seller's cars with evidently tampered odometers.Do I worry? well, slightly yes but, you know, I *really* want to buy a low-mileage car and if these people are correct then I won't be able to and I really *need* that car, i'm *desparate* for it!So, I assume that these naysayers are simply mistaken or even lying and I go and buy the car without checking it myself at all.I believe this is called the "Wishful thinking with Selective Reinforcement" method and it's followed by billions of people worldwide.So there !

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

well said. I hope this puts an end to all this "...actual reality cannot be determined by empirical evidence" crap.

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

one caveat--you had to find a better method than the scientific method. Not a more popular one.As such, your method isn't better, even though it is used.sorry

---

Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

Then that is our reality, and all we can find out about our reality is consistent with the rules and design of the game.We cannot determine from within the game whether the playstation, game or player exist, so that is part of the super-reality beyond our knowing.Nor can we verify anything postulated for that super-reality, as we are confined to the reality inside the game.There is also no point in postulating a {playstation/game/player} super-reality, as this does not change the rules and design of the game that we call reality.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

From the Dawkins thread: I seem to have been unclear in my intent for this thread. Nor did I know the term empiricism well enough to remember to use it hear (if the actual term matters).You seem to suggest that there is another way of "knowing". Would you care to explain how it works?The "empirical" approach (outlined roughly in the OP here) and the rest of the methodology of science is designed to mitigate certain pitfalls and failings of humans. How does your approach avoid those?