Which brings us back to the original (and still unanswered) question — Why is it that some theories do and some theories don’t? Now you have said that as an applied scientist you don’t care. Fine. But those who are in the business of constructing and developing scientific theories rather than merely applying them necessarily do care. Because unless their theories and explanations are accurate descriptions of reality they won’t work will they? Indeed those engaged in constructing and developing explanations judge the accuracy of their descriptions by testing them against the reality they are attempting to describe. This is why successful predictions are deemed to be indicators of a theory being true (or to be more accurate approximately true)
CS writes:
Why would a scientific explanation even address a baseless proposition?
Because there are some people who insist that certain scientific theories and conclusions cannot be drawn without first testing/falsifying their particular brand of evidentially baseless but untestable/unfalsifiable woo woo
Ultimately this talk of experience in the context of scientific knowledge boils down to this:
A methodological approach to experience (as opposed to a nave approach whereby any experience can be uncritically assumed to be indicative of external reality) teaches us that a methodological approach to experience is the most effective method of investigating and ultimately knowing (albeit it tentatively) the reality in which we find ourselves to exist. Now if you want to point out that this approach to knowledge is circular I will slap you on the back, buy you a beer and cheerfully agree. Because (and this comes back to what PaulK has been saying to Zen Deist throughout this thread) science is a rational endeavour that isn’t strictly logical. Indeed with it’s reliance on inductive reasoning and self justifying epistemological roots science is technically logically fallacious.
But (as CS would say) it works. Why does it work? Because it is a method of investigating reality and drawing tentative (yet highly justifiable) conclusions about reality based on using reality itself as the benchmark against which our conclusions are measured. Circular. Logically fallacious. But highly effective and rational all the same.
Re: who's at fault for message 205? it's a response . . . to badgering & stalking
Hi RAZD,
From the outside looking in, you and Straggler (and possibly a couple others) are in your own little world. I know each of you feels the other is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors, but I think many other people, even those who have a fair grasp of the issues, just see dense, impenetrable, repetitive prose.
All of us have friends in real life who hold opinions that would engage us in endless intense and alienating discussions where no one would ever convince the other, but because they're our friends we just avoid those topics. Here in the online world people don't avoid topics, but you're no more likely to convince a person here than you are your friends in real life. Get realistic. It's time to drop this.
Of course I don't think anyone will follow this advice, so my hope in my moderator role is to confine discussions like this to Coffee House and Free For All.
Re: Getting back to sanity ... and maybe some cooperation
I really have nothing more to say to you until you can demonstrate your sanity/honesty by explicitly denouncing something untestable on your own much cited terms. I.e. explicitly on your own scale.
See Message 190. If you aren't willing or aren't able to reply to that post with an explicit number based answer for some reason please can I request that you just stop participation in this thread.
Given your previous belligerent stance I find it strange at just how coy you have become with regard to the "Hogwarts Hypothesis" of all things.
bluegenes writes:
If someone here on EvC tells you that they have special psychic powers, and that these powers have led them to know that there is an invisible killer bogeyman in your bedroom who will be there for a week and will try to kill you while you're asleep, would you move out of your bedroom for a week? You cannot know whether the proposition is true or not (you're agnostic on it if you admit this), but you'd probably treat it as a high "6" on the Dawkins scale, and sleep in your room as normal.
RAZD writes:
Nope, for the same reason I have not been a 6 for a single hypothetical scenario that has been posted since the beginning of this thread. I have to wonder when this information will actually sink in. Message 510
Hi Straggles, still having some reading comprehension problems?
I really have nothing more to say to you until you can demonstrate your sanity/honesty by explicitly denouncing something untestable on your own much cited terms. I.e. explicitly on your own scale.
See Message 190. If you aren't willing or aren't able to reply to that post with an explicit number based answer for some reason please can I request that you just stop participation in this thread.
Curiously, I have answered this in Message 205 and this was also noted in Message 206 and I have summarized my answer in Message 220 and again in Message 224 that you have responded to here.
Here it is again, with just my comments excerpted (read Message 224 for the details):
quote:Amusingly, I fully agree that we should set this aside, because (as I have previously said) it is a fact that this is a fictional character, created by the author of a series of fantasy fiction books.
This is objective evidence that the stories and characters are fiction.
Then we have inferred testing of the concept that the books are fictional and the characters are fiction by the way people react to them:
There is no record of anyone thinking they are anything but fiction that I can find.
So that amounts to at least 450 million inferred tests of the book being fantasy fiction and that the characters are fictional, with no known\reported contraditions.
Nor has any contradictory evidence (that the characters should be considered real) been presented, so that position is not supported.
450 million bits of evidence that the book is a fantasy fiction, and that the characters are fictional, and 0 contradictory bits of evidence
There is way much more evidence that the books and characters are fictional than that they are real, and there is no contradictory evidence for this position, therefore it is logically way more likely that the books and characters are really fiction.
There is so much evidence for the books being fantasy that we can regard this as an accepted FACT by virtually all people.
Do you agree? Yes No
But there is a better way, imho, to go about this scale testing fixation of yours -- forget the silly "Dawkins Scale" or any version of it (I'm willing to chuck mine) that relies on similar subjective judgments, and instead let's just go ahead and use the new and improvedRAZD\Straggler Concept Scale that we have agreed to:
This scale has objective criteria for each of the different levels, rather than subjective judgments.
Because of the strong evidence I have previously cited for the whole set of books and the characters in them to be considered fantasy fiction as a fact, and given the absence of any contradictory evidence to this, I can safely take a (+4) stance on the concept that the books are indeed fantasy fiction novels and that the characters are fictions. I consider this a fact, and have said so.
Do you disagree that this is a fact? Yes No
When someone (paraphrased) says "but they could be true" -- then they are making a claim that needs to be substantiated. So far, not one whit of evidence has been provided to cause anyone to think there is any validity in the claim that the stories or characters could be true. This is a Zero Confidence claim.
There is no evidence that the fantasy fiction series and characters should be considered anything but fictional stories and fictional characters.
Do you agree or disagree? Agree Disagree
When we look at this table(1) and the massive evidence presented above, can we not say:
It is a fact(a) that the books and characters are fictional.
and note that is a Level IV Absolute Confidence Concept ...
... or should we say this is a Level IV Extreme Confidence Concept to include a touch of scientific tentativity?
Do you disagree? Yes No
Do you AGREE or do you DISAGREE that we can consider it a FACT that this fantasy fiction series and the fantasy fiction characters in it are indeed FICTION -- with at least the confidence that we have in any scientific fact?
Do you AGREE or do you DISAGREE that anyone considering it a FACT would place that concept as a "1" on the silly Dawkins scale that you are so incredibly attached to and enamored of? -- with at least the confidence that we have in any scientific fact?
Enjoy
Notes:
(1) - The RAZD\Straggler Concept Scale (rev1) (a) - especially if we use the scientific definition of "fact"
Moving forward ... and maybe some additional cooperation
Hi Straggles,
Do you AGREE or do you DISAGREE that The RAZD\Straggler Concept Scale is a much better scale to use, as it relies on objective criteria, than the Dawkins scale, which relies on subjective judgments and interpretations?
Now, I have proposed a number of adjustments to the scale, so let me summarize them here:
should we change the top level to IV. Extreme Confidence Concept, to include a touch of scientific tentativity, and then be able to include scientific laws in this category?
should we change IV. Absolute Extreme Confidence Concepts to read
Well established as a scientific law or scientific fact, or concepts proven to be true. (as opposed to "Proven")
It is considered or widely accepted to be a fact. (as opposed to "The truth is known")
should we say that:
Low Confidence Concepts - are untested and possibly untestable
Medium Confidence Concepts - are known to be testable, or are testable in theory
High Confidence Concepts - are empirically tested
This would give us the following for revision 1 of the scale:
Do you AGREE or do you DISAGREE with these changes?
Do you AGREE or do you DISAGREE that this is more universally applicable than the Dawkins Scale?
Enjoy
Notes: (1) - using the scientific definition of "fact" with scientific tentativity included.
Because there are some people who insist that certain scientific theories and conclusions cannot be drawn without first testing/falsifying their particular brand of evidentially baseless but untestable/unfalsifiable woo woo
{dons on the role of a fearsome highway robber in the deep south USA on a dark dirt road leaping out from the bushes in front of Straggler...holds an unknown homemade zipgun weapon menacingly in Straggler's face in one hand and a large ceramic jug in the other...}
CITE!! Post direct links to posts written by these "some people". Who are they? Do NOT paraphrase in your in your own words. Do NOT draw conclusions in your own words. CITE in linked quote boxes.
You have been having a bad habit of not doing this, instead you have been substituting your own rewritten words. Get over it. You need to CITE these posted phenomena in a manner that we can check and assure ourselves that you are not misquoting, misinterpreting, and even LYING. We need to be able to repeat the experiment and confirm. Your credibility on this issue has been destroyed. You need to start over.
(Oh, and by the way, what is your definition of "woo woo". - no, nevermind that...)
What is your EVIDENCE?
Don't give me your massaged data - give me the raw data.
So I ask you now to CITE. I ask you 1st. Then you can ask me (although RAZD Zen Deist has been citing many of your transgressions all along).
When you have finished drinking down this horrible deadly moonshine on this dark dirt road, then I'll give you this gun and you can make me drink!
Nope, same old scale, incorporating your amendment, with some proposed minor modifications for your review. Please review Message 233 and see if they are improvements or not. Let me know eh? I really believe we can reach a common agreement here.
See Message 190 for the "Hogwarts Hypothesis" if you have forgotten what that is.
See Message 231 for your answer to this and to Message 232: failure to read a response does not mean it was not made. Failure to understand it may be a different issue.
It looks like Panda seems to put himself in the curious position of disagreeing with you ("If in a thread supposedly about scientific knowledge we cannot all agree that Lord Voldermort is all-but-certainly made-up then it is time to call the men in white coats to take someone away."Message 163) ... so where do you stand?
Do you consider we can rationally and confidently say that it is a fact(1) that these stories are fantasy fiction, and that the fantasy characters in them are, in fact, fictional? ... or that there is some reason to think that they are Real?
Do you AGREE or DISAGREE that the evidence is as persuasive that these are fictional as the "all but certain" evidence for scientific facts?
Do you AGREE or DISAGREE that saying you have a (1) position on the Dawkins Scale for religious beliefs ... for a fantasy novel series and fantasy characters actually being fantasy is more than just a little bit silly?
Do you AGREE or DISAGREE that saying you have a (+4) position (that the stories and characters are fictional) on the joint RAZD\Straggler Concept Scale(2) ... is a more objective, better way of measuring this ... if one really really has to do so?
Enjoy
Notes: (1) - fact in the scientific sense, with some tentativity of course (2) - see Message 233
Red Zone Untestable Concept vs Blue Zone Tested Concepts
Misunderstanding Straggler has this to say:
This is what RAZ had to say when faced with the same question:
RAZD writes:
Straggler writes:
Where do you place yourself on your own scale of belief above with regard to the untestable notion that all of the evidence on which our scientific conclusions are based is the result of false memories implanted when the universe was created 1 second ago?
I place myself as a 5, as you would understand if you actually read my positions. Obviously we cannot know for sure, we cannot test, but we can have opinions, and my personal opinion is that it is false.
How can the scientifically evidenced conclusion that the Earth is billions of years old be indicative of "probable reality" (to use RAZ's own words as applied to highly evidenced scientific conclusions) without rejecting the notion that the universe was created 1 second ago as "improbable"?
To put this in perspective:
The "1 second old universe" etc (ie all the little scenarios and concepts of "untestable this" and "untestable that") concepts are ones that assume that the evidence lies. They are in the RED zone.
Science assumes that objective evidence represents reality, and thus it is within the blue area.
Everything outside the blue area is the reason that science must be tentative, no matter how strong the confidence we can have in a theory, because it is possible that objective evidence lies and does not represent reality.
All your little scenarios and concepts of "untestable this" and "untestable that" pertaining to imaginary possibilities of evidence being false are ALL in the area outside the blue circle.
... the scientifically evidenced conclusion that the Earth is billions of years old be indicative of "probable reality" ...
... is a scientifically tested concept inside the BLUE zone, predicated on the a priori assumption that the evidence is not a lie.
We can have level III. High Confidence(1) in this concept within the blue zone.
When we step out of that zone the confidence vanishes(2), and we are unable to test whether those results are real or the "1 second old universe" is real.
We can make assumptions and form opinions about concepts in the red zone, but that is all. At best this gives us level I. Low Confidence Concepts(3) opinions and assumptions, which cannot be any higher confidence because they are untestable.
Unconfirmed or subjective supporting evidence, opinion also involved, untested and possibly untestable, but no known objective empirical evidence pro or con, nothing shows the concept per se to be invalid
Conclusions regarding possibilities for further investigation, and opinions can be based on this level of evidence,
Notes on Notes: (a) - in Message 181 Straggler confides:
PS - I used to be a maths teacher. I've seen similar from smart-arse 16 year olds plenty of times. Surely RAZ should have grown out of such things by now?
The logical fallacy of authority, attempted self aggrandizement, and unsubstantiated assertion (ie - a complete absence of any analysis or critique). This is also someone who did not KNOW that 0.9999(etc) ≡ 1. Wonder if any of those kids did ...
...a methodological approach to experience is the most effective method of investigating and ultimately knowing (albeit it tentatively) the reality in which we find ourselves to exist.
What in the world is the difference between this Postulate and the other one, "Substantiated objective scientific evidence is telling us about reality and not LYING." Best? Most effective? "Methodological" == objectively scientific & able to be substantiated. Best & most effective == best way to explain it as we know it --> we are not being lied to. It is the same. You are agreeing with me and CS and ZD. We are on the same page.
If you don't think it is a Postulate for the Scientific Method, then enlighten me - what was it derived from?
Because (and this comes back to what PaulK has been saying to Zen Deist throughout this thread) science is a rational endeavour that isn’t strictly logical. Indeed with it’s reliance on inductive reasoning and self justifying epistemological roots science is technically logically fallacious.
But ZD has not been trying addressing science's own justifications. He has been addressing individual people's opinions of it. He doesn't care or complain with how much you agree with how strongly he supports the Scientific Method (and he supports it very strongly, if you haven't noticed) - he cares about your reasons for doing so. He wants them to be well-founded. That's what this whole enchilada about Pseudoskepicism vis'a'vis God came from. When you come up with all these fantastic untestible or fictional SBs, they miss the target - they attack the foundation of science - that methodological experience (objective substantiated evidence) is not trying to LIE. They do not address the logical formulation of each individual's support of it. They are off topic.
But (as CS would say) it works. Why does it work? Because it is a method of investigating reality and drawing tentative (yet highly justifiable) conclusions about reality based on using reality itself as the benchmark against which our conclusions are measured. Circular. Logically fallacious. But highly effective and rational all the same.
- but nonetheless still assuming, underneath, that it's evidence is in fact NOT some kind of Last Thursdayism lying away like crazy. Look: "using reality itself as the benchmark against which our conclusions are measured" - yes, but verified against alternate explanations by using equipment that is built carefully under the assumption that all of the calibration steps & null-hypothesis testing are giving results that are NOT lying in exactly the same manner. Last Thursdayism will create the LIE that you remember carefully building & calibrating your equipment even though it might falsely be remembered as happening over a month ago.
WAIT! i see it: "using reality itself as the benchmark against which our conclusions are measured" - you mean this is where we verify that it is not LYING to us? True. But this is not at the upper level I'm talking about. I'm talking a bout a systemic universe-wide lying in everything, as in Last Thursdayism.
Edited by xongsmith, : Which kind of LYING did I mean....
- no, nevermind that...)
™ Version 4.2
(1)
