Total posts: 13,796
Posted in:
(5) Reinforcements
As far as I can tell, Karl Popper's Philosophy of Science is generally considered authoritative. Please let me know if you dispute this and we can attempt another approach.
"According to Popper, basic statements are "statements asserting that an observable event is occurring in a certain individual region of space and time" (1959, p. 85). More specifically, basic statements must be both singular and existential (the formal requirement) and be testable by [*]intersubjective[*] observation (the material requirement)."[5]
Therefore "science" is not "objective" and does not require "objectivity". This seems to be a common misconception about the fundamental nature of "science" and by extension, just about everything else, including "law" and "ethics", some people even think they have "objective opinions".
"Science" seems to function perfectly well under Popper's model. I am unable to detect any benefit to imagining that any particular thing has some sort of (detectable?) "objective" quality or existence.
In fact, Immanuel Kant points out pretty explicitly that "objective" noumenon is fundamentally undetectable and its "existence" cannot be inferred from observable phenomena.
"Even if noumenon are unknowable, they are still needed as a limiting concept, Kant tells us. Without them, there would be only phenomena, and since potentially we have complete knowledge of our phenomena, we would in a sense know everything. In his own words: "Further, the concept of a noumenon is necessary, to prevent sensible intuition from being extended to things in themselves, and thus to limit the objective validity of sensible knowledge."[6]
"...to prevent sensible intuition from being extended..."[6]
The quote makes it sound as if Kant is trying to "put a box around the concept of objectivity" in order to keep people from making the mistake of thinking they can know it, or in-fact even speculate about it intuitively.
(6) Common counter arguments
I would like to bring your attention to the following quotes,
"We have shown that it is hard to define scientific objectivity in terms of a view from nowhere and freedom from values and from personal bias. It is a lot harder to say anything positive about the matter."[7]
"For instance, our discussion of the value-free ideal (VFI) revealed that alternatives to the VFI are as least as problematic as the VFI itself, and that the VFI may, with all its inadequacies, still be a useful heuristic for fostering scientific integrity and objectivity. Similarly, although an "unbiased" science may be impossible, there are many mechanisms scientists can adopt for protecting their reasoning against undesirable forms of bias, e.g., choosing an appropriate method of statistical inference."[7]
The above quotes are from the conclusions (section 7) of an extremely well sourced page from the Stanford.edu website that purports to be a thorough analysis of the concept of scientific objectivity.
One key problem with this essay, is that it never clearly defines the critical terms (i.e. "science" and "objectivity"), but instead merely reports various (definitively subjective) opinions about what "science" and "objectivity" might mean and how they may or may not relate to one another.
But setting that aside, in their conclusions they admit that although they can make some tentative statements about what "scientific objectivity" is not, they are at a complete loss to say exactly what it is (with any positive assertions). This reminds me of the "god in the gaps"[9] argument and would seem to be an example of the "appeal to ignorance"[10] logical fallacy.
They go on to argue that even if "objectivity" is perhaps (probably) an unattainable goal, it is still better than the (presumably shocking or frightening, yet undefined) alternative (clearly an "affirming the consequent"[11] fallacy). I would imagine that scientists, of all categories of people in the world would understand the dangers of pursuing an amorphous concept that presumably lends unquestionable authority to their conclusions.
(7) Round 1 closing statement
Feel free to expand upon and/or challenge any of the arguments described above or add your own. I look forward to having a civil conversation regarding the topic at hand.
Created:
Posted in:
(2) Proposed definition: "science"
(s.1) "Science is systematic knowledge acquired by the application of logic to observation."[2]
Please let me know if you provisionally agree to allow common google.com definitions of words contained within these definitions.[2]
(3) Proposed definition: "objective"
Objective: (o.1) (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. (AND/OR) not dependent on the mind for existence; actual.[3]
(o.1a) antonyms: biased, partial, prejudiced[3]
(o.1b) antonyms: subjective[3]
For contrast, I would like to present a common definition of "subjective":
(IFF) (sj.1) Subjective: based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. (AND/OR) dependent on the mind or on an individual's perception for its existence.[8]
(sj.1a) antonyms: objective[8]
And (IFF) "subjective" is an antonym of "objective" (THEN) "objective" can not be "based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. (AND/OR) dependent on the mind or on an individual's perception for its existence."[8]
(4) Key support for resolution
Let's analyze the resolution "Science is not objective."
(k.1) Science as defined in (s.1) implies that "science" is the "knowledge" (data) acquired by "observation" (ostensibly by a human or possibly by more than one human).
(k.2) I believe it is fair to say that human observation is impossible without a human mind and an individual's (definitively subjective) perception and this fact would logically place "objectivity" beyond the scope of the human mind and an individual's perception according to the definitions presented previously as (o.1) and (o.1b).
The resolution could be restated as (s.1) is not (o.1).
(k.3) Another way to say this would be perhaps, "knowledge acquired by (human) observation is not (and cannot be) independent of the human mind and/or beyond human perception".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Smithereens
Well stated.IQ is a psychometric for g factor, which accounts for around 30-50% of variance between different cognitive skills. The other 50% variance is not accounted for by the g factor. If you claim g factor is a true measure of "intelligence" you're about 50% correct, which is exactly how much predictive validity you have to work with.Intelligence theories use factor models and IQ is one of them. the g factor is the most broad and is only apparent after dimentionality reduction. Each IQ test has subsets that all items load onto, and each loading itself loads onto the g factor with pretty high strength. As with all factor reductions, a lot of variance is sacrificed in the process. Anyone who claims the g factor is the only predictor of intelligence doesn't understand factor analysis. It's merely the most obvious predictor. A scree plot however would show you that the sum of the next dozen strongest factors summed together wouldn't match the eigenvalue of the g factor, so it's clearly the only factor worth using.In short, IQ is a measure of g factor, g factor is the correlation of performance between unrelated cognitive tests, and the g factor accounts for up to 50% of the variance in performance. For an individual an IQ test result doesn't mean much, but in large populations we see trends and correlations that are very useful for scientific study.
You might find this interesting - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-Ur71ZnNVk
Created:
-->
@Type1
I post a bunch of debates and RM eats them up like a wild hog, most of the rest of you just spend your time engaging in pointless banter in the forums.
The forums are a great way to hone your skill and explore possible topics for debate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Doesn't a dog have "manifest subjective experience"? I mean, they do seem to remember things. Do you believe a dog has consciousness?What does the conscious mind do?The problematical thing the conscious mind does is manifest subjective experience. That is what we have no idea how it comes about or how we could implement it in a machine.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TwoMan
I'd say, human consciousness is a social necessity.@draftermanit's clear that the conscious mind isn't needed (though it probably plays an important role).That makes no sense. You are contradicting yourself. What role does the conscious mind play if all decisions are made by the unconscious mind?
Being able to apparently "explain our motives and intentions" allows us to construct social abstractions that promote enhanced cooperation.
For example, most social mammals use body language and specific grunts, growls, squeaks, and pants in order to communicate rudimentary motives and intentions. Human consciousness is just a small step forward along those same lines, allowing humans to coordinate and cooperate in even more complex ways.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
Well stated.There is no evidence that such a thing exists.What you call "desire" I call post hoc justification for a decision your brain already made at a subconscious level.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
You seem very ill-disposed towards the subjective and qualia! If the universe was devoid of consciousness, there would be no subjectivity or qualia, but there is consciousness so there is subjectivity and qualia.
One of the fundamental problems I've identified is that most people tend to conflate the terms "real" and "important", when, in-fact, they are mutually exclusive.
For example: "real" is defined as, "Being or occurring in fact or actuality; having verifiable existence. True and actual; not imaginary, alleged, or ideal." - https://duckduckgo.com/?q=define+real&t=h_&atb=v79-2&ia=definition
What is "real" is quanta and quanta is meaningless.
All meaning, everything important, is qualia.
I'm not sure how you could characterize my attitude towards qualia as "very ill-disposed"(?) since I have repeatedly stated as clearly as possible, "quanta is meaningless and qualia is meaningful".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
It's begging the question to say that prerequisites to life are inherently "important" (to living things).
Without the prerequisites to life, there would, axiomatically, be no life, and therefore nothing to "value" the prerequisites to life or life itself as a concept.
The prerequisites to life are only "valuable" to living things because of their survival instinct.
The prerequisites to life are generally incidental and taken completely for granted.
The fact that most (but not all) living things wish to survive as long as possible is merely a subjective value judgement and as such, pure qualia.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
The links you posted have absolutely nothing to do with EtrnlVw.
Your demand that anyone "read every single post" is clearly an appeal to ignorance (typically identified by, "you can't prove me wrong so I must be right" which is also a burden-of-proof-fallacy).
For example, anyone might say, hypothetically, "Goldtop is a troll. Just go back and read all of their posts and you'll certainly agree." such a statement would be an example of an ad hominem attack and an appeal to ignorance as well. At which point someone might ask you, "Goldtop, are you a troll?" to which you may answer "no", and seeing as the definition of "troll" relies implicitly on one's internal motives, it would be practically impossible to prove you wrong since you are the only person who has virtually unfettered access to your personal internal motives.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
Yet another predictable personal attack from Goldtop.Lol. One thing I certainly understand is when someone with poor reading comprehension skills pretends to act intelligent.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
You are begging the question. The phenomena you mention are not "important" in and of themselves.Yeah, right. Those photons that tan your skin brown or burn your skin via UV or ionization are not important.
Photons contacting human skin are merely incidental in most cases. They only become "important" if a person is trying to avoid the discomfort associated with prolonged exposure or if you are concerned about the tone of the exposed skin or other associated potential health risks.
Just like with everything else, your environment is only important in as much as it affects your qualitative experience.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
And yet another ad hominem attack coupled with an appeal to ignorance.Now we know you're lying, that claim would demand you have read every single post of Et, here and ddo.
I will reiterate, regardless of what a person posts, only the individual themself can either confirm or deny their personal motivations.
I would like to think that you of all people would be able to understand the difference between quanta and qualia.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
@Goldtop
Nope, he has mentioned many times that cult, here and ddo, that we need to look into it. How is that not recruiting?
EtrnlVw mentions all sorts of religions/cults/beliefs/metaphysics. Your "data" is inconclusive.
Only EtrnlVw can confirm if they are a member of any of the organizations they mention or if they would like anyone else to join a particular group.
Your ad hominem attack is not only unsubstantiated, it is also moot.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
I'm pretty sure this qualifies as an unsubstantiated ad hominem attack.He is a recruiter from the ECK cult.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
If your definition of what is real is what you perceive then yes but if your definition is whatever qaulia exist regardless of our ability to confirm said qualia then we just cannot be certain.
I believe that anything considered qualia is fundamentally unverifiable and as such does not qualify as "extant".
This is one of the core misunderstandings I've identified.
For example, many people tend to believe that "love" is "real" because they "feel" it, but it is, in fact, instead, one of many (important) qualia that is unquantifiable.
People tend to think that only "real" things are important, however, this is backwards.
Quanta is inherently meaningless.
Everything that is truly important and meaningful is qualia.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I believe it is safe enough to say that what is "real" is quantifiable by corroborated scientific observation.Providing our perceptions reflect reality.
It would seem to be axiomatic if the term "reality" is defined as "what is reliably perceptible and/or scientifically corroborated".
Illusion or hallucination or Gnosis or metaphysics might be "what is unreliably perceptible and/or unable to be scientifically corroborated".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I believe it is safe enough to say that what is "real" is quantifiable by corroborated scientific observation.So I don't have a definition for what is "real" although I accept my perceptions as "real" for convenience sake.
But that doesn't cover very much. The rest of it is sort of a "best guess" of "uncharted unstable territory".
Netflix has a new series called "Maniac" which is an interesting exploration on this subject.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Are you willing to look outside the veil of the physical worldIs there a reliable repeatable method of accomplishing This? Perhaps one which can be observed and subjected to rigorous scientific testing?
Try this - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGarjovMfj0
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@eash
Thank you.when i read this i laughed out loud.
I'm not sure I can authoritatively answer your other questions though.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
@TwoMan
@bsh1
@Barney
Debate created - https://www.debateart.com/debates/142
The format creates a teacher/student relationship within the debate.
The participant that gains the most intellectually by refining their arguments is the student and technically loses the debate.
The participant that gains the least intellectually (but perhaps enhances their communication skills) technically wins the debate.
If both participants are intransigent, it ends in a tie.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
That would seem to be epistemologically prudent.That is why I am a soft solipsist and a hard skeptic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I would say that it may be impossible to be objectively certain that anything is "real" or "exists" regardless of one's preferred definition.
I agree that it may be impossible to be objectively certain about anything in particular simply because humans are subjective beings that only experience a tiny, dynamic, fraction of what may be possible.
Raising the bar to "objectively certain" would seem to be an astronomical overreach.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I'm not sure it's fair to say the pilot "wanted" to "go there". It seems more likely they were told to "go there" and paid to "go there" and warned of horrific consequences if they did not "go there" within the acceptable margin of error.The difference between a balloon gong from glasgow to london and a pilot flying to same route is that one ended up there and the other wanted to go there.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
These are qaulia not quanta. This thread is nothing more than an avenue to discuss the difference.
By your own standard, wouldn't you say that "real" and "exists" are quanta and "illusory" and "non-existent" are qualia?
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Parthenogenesis for the win!!
Either Mary had Jesus by Parthenogenesis, or "YHWH" is the father, which would cancel out the "virgin birth" claim and make Jesus basically a demi-god like Perseus or Hercules or Orion or Dionysus or Achilles.
You can't have it both ways.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
This is an ontological problem.The most annoying thing about the idea that our universe isn't real is that you can't really prove the universe is real without making the supposition that the universe is real. Now I enjoy my life and pursue happiness because I am happy whether the universe is real or not but I just can't shake the realisation that my experience may be completely illusory.I am a soft solipsist, which is to say that I am willing to accept that my senses reflect reality provincially as a convenience since this tends to make my experience more pleasant than if I were to ignore my perceptions of it.Can anyone find a way to be certain that anything exists besides your experience in and of itself?
Please provide your preferred definitions of "real" and "exists" as opposed to "illusory" and "non-existent".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
+1I am not comfortable with using public shaming as a punishment. That would be to legitimize personal attacks as a tool for moderators, when moderators prohibit other users from making personal attacks.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Just say, "The Ontological Argument".I don't care about anything you've said. You are superstitious.And The Ultimate Reality is not contingent on humans to exist. If that was the case. It wouldn't be The Ultimate Reality.There is no reality without God, so either you do believe God exists or you are just saying what you think sounds convincing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz already detailed the world's first and only perfectly rational metaphysical framework.
There's really no reason to try and re-invent the wheel so to speak.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shed12
Presumably because it has no soul, which would actually be quite difficult to prove.Why wouldn't a balloon have free will?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Does an insect have a desire to consume sustenance and procreate?Typical of such an internal states would be 'desires' - say a desire to to go Bordeaux. Which raises the question of what is a 'desire' made of. It is a desire a physical object? If so, I'd like to know how that works! but if a desire isn't a physical object, then there is no guarantee it is subject to ordinary causality.
Does an insect therefore have free will?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Plisken
Logical suspicion is hypothesis.
If a hypothesis is testable (falsifiable) then it is scientific.
If a hypothesis is untestable (unfalsifiable) then it is "metaphysics" (qualia).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I can detect reality, and it is actually throug detecting reality that I can strongly make the claim that it is logical to believe that there is undetected reality.What's the alternative? Outright denying the reality of your experience.
It is logical to strongly suspect there may be undetected reality, but you can't get very specific about the details of something you've never detected (like noumenon for instance).
The key difference is between "probably", "likely", "may be", "could be", "might be", and "IS".
It is logical to strongly suspect your refrigerator is working properly, however it may have failed since the last time you checked.
It is logical to strongly suspect your refrigerator is in the same place you left it, however it may have been moved by someone or something since the last time you checked.
It is logical to strongly suspect the light in your refrigerator is always turned on, however it may toggle off every time you close the door.
And if you are having an experience at all, you are detecting some form of reality.
I agree with this statement 100 percent. Reality is defined by what we can reliably detect (experience) and as such, it would seem to be axiomatic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
If you are unable to detect sound, it is illogical to conclude that there is no sound.
If you are unable to detect sound, it is illogical to conclude that there is undetected sound.
If you are unable to detect radiation, it is illogical to conclude that there is no radiation.
If you are unable to detect radiation, it is illogical to conclude that there is undetected radiation.
If you are unable to detect multiple finite-occupied-space-universe, it is illogical to conclude that there is no multiple finite-occupied-space-universe.
If you are unable to detect multiple finite-occupied-space-universe, it is illogical to conclude that there is undetected multiple finite-occupied-space-universe.
Epistemological standards of evidence only allow us to say what is reliably detectable and what is not reliably detectable.
Epistemological standards of evidence are pretty good about telling us what exists, but is extremely bad at telling us what doesn't exist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
It was only six minutes...
I'm not really ready to do a "deep dive" and "compare notes" so to speak.
In my experience, it seems prudent to stick with consensus quanta and negotiate qualia.
Two people trying to talk about Gnosis is often like a fly trying to talk to a penguin.
Gnosis is really only important (or even knowable) to the specific individual who has actually experienced it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Plisken
The founding fathers drew a clear line at "fighting words".
How might you propose we differentiate between "appropriate" and "inappropriate" speech?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
It appears we have uncovered common ground.Ok, so do you think it would be fair to say you know any of this because of Gnosis?Mixed with my own observations as well. All knowledge is at the finger tips of every soul, not just mine.
I agree that, when it comes to "spiritual" or "divine" or "metaphysical" Q&A, the answer should always be, "you should never trust another soul, and you should never expect another soul to trust you, go look for yourself".
You might like this - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGarjovMfj0
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
If you are unable to detect sound, it is illogical to conclude that there is no sound.You are describing noumenon.Take away the noise and you hear nothing aka slience.Take away the visible radiation and you see nothing aka lack of light.Take away the finite, occupied space Universe and what remains is macro-infinite, non-occupied space.Take away the ego, and the truth remains unfettered................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................infinite..........................................SPACE{>*<) i (>*<)SPACE.................................infinite...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
If you are unable to detect radiation, it is illogical to conclude that there is no radiation.
If you are unable to detect finite-occupied-space-universe, it is illogical to conclude that there is no finite-occupied-space-universe.
How would you know if perhaps, maybe, we were in something like... I don't know...
..........................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................................................................................................
................inDEfinite..........................................SPACE{>*<) i (>*<)SPACE.................................inDEfinite............................................
......................................inDEfinite.....................................SPACE{>*<) i (>*<)SPACE .................................inDEfinite.... ...........................................inDEfinite..............................................SPACE{>*<) i (>*<)SPACE.................................inDEfinite....
...........................................................................................................................................................................................................
I do love a chance to engage in a serious discussion concerning the metaphysics of cosmic ontology.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stronn
I've never seen a logically coherent definition for free will.Me either. I think it is because the idea of freewill is intimately linked with consciousness, and we do not understand consciousness. If we did, then a workable definition might be the ability to make conscious choices.
Whenever anyone says the word, "consciousness" I hear, "magic fairy dust".
And while were on the subject of unfalsifiable statements, I'd like to note that I'm pretty sure an automobile has a soul.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
I'm not going to tell you what I can't possibly know.When are you going to tell us what exists outside of your more limited concept --because of not being eternally existent--- of a finite, occupied space Universe?
Besides the fact that it does not and cannot possibly matter in any practical or verifiable sense to us as humans.
You are describing noumenon.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Unfortunately, if I inform you that this is an identity fallacy, you would counter and say I am making a no true scottsman fallacy.But I will say it anyway. Killing people for their beliefs is not Christian.
At least you seem to know what you're doing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Ok, so do you think it would be fair to say you know any of this because of Gnosis?This makes things very confusing, but the reality of it all is that many religions are an expression of what they observe from collective societies outside this physical experience.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Ok, you make a good point about deism being logical pantheism.
Let's start over.
Pantheism is functionally identical to atheism.
Please let me know if you can draw a straight line between pantheism and any general syncretistic or theistic belief.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
This is getting out of hand.
Just tell me what makes you think you can know what nobody can possibly know?
And don't try to tell me "it's the only logical conclusion".
If you have a formal logical statement (syllogism) then show it.
(IFF) there are things that we know and things that we don't know (AND) we have no way of observing or verifying what is currently beyond our ability to observe and understand (THEN) we can only reliably know what can be observed and quantified (THEREFORE) although we can speculate about a hypothetical "infinite-non-occupied-space" we can't have any confidence whatsoever that it is "infinite" or "non-occupied" or even "space".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TwoMan
You can use any definition you please.Those are not my definitions, I just copied then from a couple of dictionary sites. If you disagree with the definitions, feel free to create your own. That however, would change the nature of the argument.
I've never seen a logically coherent definition for free will.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I should have been more specific.And who is trying to kill you or trample your rights?
It would seem that mustardness believes his opinion about what may or may not exist beyond our epistemological limits is FACT (quanta).
It would seem that mustardness believes his opinion (characterization) of my attempts to communicate with them is also FACT (quanta).
It would seem that mustardness is conflating qualia with quanta.
If you want examples of people killing for qualia, you might check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sectarian_violence_among_Christians
Even Christians will kill each other for being the wrong type of Christian.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
Case in point.It is difficult to treat someone charitably if they are trying to kill you or trample your rights.1} And/or they keep reposting irrational, illogical lack of common sense statements, and offer no shred of rational, logical common sense to support if not validate their conclusions.2} And/or if they keep denying obvious rational, logical common sense pathways that validate truth and invalidate non-truths/lies.3} And/or they refuse to address our comments as stated, or create misleading statements that do no reflect what was actually stated.4} ?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TwoMan
As for your first definition, "necessity" and "fate" are unfalsifiable concepts and are therefore blatant appeals to ignorance.For example [1]"the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate" or [2]"the ability to choose between different possible courses of action unimpeded". "Free will" is just a label to describe the ability to make a choice.
And your second definition, "possible" is also an unfalsifiable claim.
All arguments attempting to defend free will are identical to the "god in the gaps" arguments defending theistic/deistic belief.
If I remember correctly, you maintain that insects have free will and I will agree with you if you expand your definition of free will to include any choice.
I only have trouble understanding the people who insist that only adult humans have this magical free will pixie dust rattling around in their heads.
Created: