ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 5th November 2018, 02:05 PM   #81
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,421
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
Well, thank Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow.
Why should I hold them responsible for your interpretation of their article and its supposed application to cognitive relativism?
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2018, 02:05 PM   #82
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,578
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
And this makes them immune to pandering to the masses ... how?
It doesn't. It is doesn't follow that this is what happened.
So now evidence for the fact that it actually happened.
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2018, 02:08 PM   #83
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,421
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
It doesn't.
So what point did you intend to make by emphasizing the identity of the authors?
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2018, 02:08 PM   #84
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 15,489
"I'm deliberately and dishonestly misinterpreting what a well known smart person said" is not an argument Tommy.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

"Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2018, 02:10 PM   #85
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,578
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Why should I hold them responsible for your interpretation of their article and its supposed application to cognitive relativism?
That is a fair question.
Here is the short answer.
Any theory of everything can't be a theory of everything, if it is possible to hold contradictory views of everything including 2 different models of the same.
If everything was hard facts, then it wouldn't be possible to hold different worldviews. It is a fact, that there are different worldviews, hence not all of reality are cases of hard facts; i.e. cognitive relativism.
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2018, 02:13 PM   #86
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,421
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
Any theory of everything can't be a theory of everything, if it is possible to hold contradictory views of everything including 2 different models of the same.
If everything was hard facts, then it wouldn't be possible to hold different worldviews.
The authors are taking about a grand unified theory in physics. They're not talking about "worldviews." So no, this has bugger all to do with the point the authors have actually made. Why should I hold them responsible for your misuse of their article?
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2018, 02:15 PM   #87
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 15,489
What is this some kind of stupid philosophical "Can a complete set contain itself" nonsense?

That's bullcrap isn't some paradox where the meaning of the world is hidden. It's meaningless word salad.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

"Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2018, 02:17 PM   #88
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,578
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
The authors are taking about a grand unified theory in physics. They're not talking about "worldviews." So no, this has bugger all to do with the point the authors have actually made. Why should I hold them responsible for your misuse of their article?
Because they talk about philosophy!!!
And realism, anti-realism, instrumentalism and idealism. That leads to cognitive relativism.
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2018, 02:17 PM   #89
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,421
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
Ah, I see.
Well, I can also do ethics, besides cognitive relativism.
We can also do politics as a part of ethics.
We can also include science about the good life/morality in ethics if you like.
The authors you cite are speaking about theoretical physics, specifically the elusive grand unified theory. What does that have to do with any of the topics you've mentioned?
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2018, 02:18 PM   #90
p0lka
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,126
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
Let us do:
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/...atisscience_12

All of them!
Come on. You can do it. Cognitive relativism is in there in that link.
I would have thought it would be better for you to reply to the comments in this thread, seems like you are just chaffing.
p0lka is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2018, 02:20 PM   #91
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,421
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
Because they talk about philosophy!!!
And realism, anti-realism, instrumentalism and idealism. That leads to cognitive relativism.
They use popular philosophical concepts to introduce the problem they write about, which is the grand unified theory -- a vexing problem in theoretical physics.

You emphasized the identities of the authors, and I asked you why you did that. Will you please answer my question?
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2018, 02:20 PM   #92
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,578
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
The authors you cite are speaking about theoretical physics, specifically the elusive grand unified theory. What does that have to do with any of the topics you've mentioned?
Quote:
This notion may be difficult for many people, including some working scientists, to accept. Most people believe that there is an objective reality out there and that our senses and our science directly convey information about the material world. Classical science is based on the belief that an external world exists whose properties are definite and independent of the observer who perceives them. In philosophy, that belief is called realism.

Those who remember Timothy Leary and the 1960s, however, know of another possibility: oneís concept of reality can depend on the mind of the perceiver. That viewpoint, with various subtle differences, goes by names such as antirealism, instrumentalism or idealism. According to those doctrines, the world we know is constructed by the human mind employing sensory data as its raw material and is shaped by the interpretive structure of our brains. This viewpoint may be hard to accept, but it is not difficult to understand.
Have you actually read the article?
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2018, 02:22 PM   #93
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,578
Originally Posted by p0lka View Post
I would have thought it would be better for you to reply to the comments in this thread, seems like you are just chaffing.
It is connected.
Reality is in part e.g. gravity and ethics. They are connected and not irrelevant to each other.
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2018, 02:22 PM   #94
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,421
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
Have you actually read the article?
Yes. Answer my questions.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2018, 02:23 PM   #95
Hlafordlaes
Disorder of Kilopi
 
Hlafordlaes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Flux
Posts: 9,348
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
No motivation can be observed as it can't be seen, touched, held, manhandled or anything outside a brain. Motivation is a case of emotional/moral/cognitive relativism. In some cases what motivates you is not the same as me, hence emotional/moral/cognitive relativism.
To me motivating observation is a case of contradicting terms.
We can infer motivation in other humans, but we can't observe it directly. It requires a theory of mind. And you don't observe your motivation, you experience it otherwise.
The term used was "motivating observation." That refers to a measurement giving rise to data, an observation. This can be subjected to independent confirmation, meaning there is something potentially real to talk about.

As to "motivation" as you use the term, any physical system that has a humongous number of degrees of freedom, as does an adult human, will prove impossible to predict due to uncertainty. Nevertheless, we can observe that humans do things and can give reasons for them, which is why we have the word "motivation" in the first place: to talk about people doing just that.

Wait a minute, what am I doing in here, OMG...
__________________
Driftwood on an empty shore of the sea of meaninglessness. Irrelevant, weightless, inconsequential moment of existential hubris on the fast track to oblivion.
His real name is Count Douchenozzle von Stenchfahrter und Lichtendicks. - shemp
Hlafordlaes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2018, 02:26 PM   #96
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,421
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
It is connected.
Reality is in part e.g. gravity and ethics. They are connected and not irrelevant to each other.
Please favor us with a line of reasoning for the claim that gravity and ethics are connected. While your article speaks at length about gravity, I fail to see where it connects to your desire to discuss ethics.

I have asked you several times to explain why you emphasized the identity of the authors of your article. You seem reluctant to answer. Why?
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2018, 02:26 PM   #97
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,578
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Yes. Answer my questions.
I have.
Scientific realism is not the only worldview. To explain other worldviews as a part of reality you need cognitive relativism.
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2018, 02:28 PM   #98
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 15,489
Again not having intellectual standards and just going "Everybody's right" because you're afraid telling someone they are wrong is mean doesn't make you a good person.

You (well the character you're playing in this skit you think we're not seeing through) is arguing for intellectual inoffensiveness as a Golden Rule. That's madness.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

"Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2018, 02:29 PM   #99
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,421
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
I have.
Please link to the post where you answered my question regarding why you emphasized the identity of the authors of your article.

Please link to the post where you explained how theoretical physics is connected to ethics. You merely stated they are connected; you offered no explanation.

Quote:
Scientific realism is not the only worldview. To explain other worldviews as a part of reality you need cognitive relativism.
You have not explained how theoretical physics applies to "worldviews" or cognitive relativism. You have merely pointed out that the authors invoked popular concepts of relativism to introduce a discussion on the ongoing difficulty in finding the grand unified theory in theoretical physics.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2018, 02:29 PM   #100
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,578
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Please favor us with a line of reasoning for the claim that gravity and ethics are connected. While your article speaks at length about gravity, I fail to see where it connects to your desire to discuss ethics.

I have asked you several times to explain why you emphasized the identity of the authors of your article. You seem reluctant to answer. Why?
Start reading http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=332622
They believe that Hawking defends scientific realism.

RL calls.

I like that you hold me to my claim about gravity and ethics.
If reality wants to, we may continue later.
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2018, 02:37 PM   #101
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,421
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
Start readingj...
I'm familiar with that thread. It has nothing to do with the points raised in the article, nor your desire to discuss cognitive relativism in this thread. I suggest if you wish to have a discussion about what has gone on in that thread, you discuss it in that thread. I'm asking you about claims made in this one, based on the article you opened it with.

Quote:
I like that you hold me to my claim about gravity and ethics.
If reality wants to, we may continue later.
I intend to hold you to all your claims. When you return, I expect you to substantiate the claim that you had already answered the questions I repeatedly asked, or admit error. I specifically asked for links to the posts where you believe you had already provided the answers. Your departure coincides with a failure to provide them as asked.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2018, 02:39 PM   #102
Hlafordlaes
Disorder of Kilopi
 
Hlafordlaes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Flux
Posts: 9,348
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
... Don't treat science as an authoritative source for everything. ... It is a good tool, but not universal.
In terms of modelling the natural world, the scientific method is the only one that produces valid and reliable knowledge: things are what you expect, and repeatedly so. That is what "authoritative" is: knowledge that works. Unless you prefer the arbitrary and capricious whim of a bully, the mindless authority of brute force alone.

As for woo, well, to each his own imaginings, and whatever elevates your carpet.
__________________
Driftwood on an empty shore of the sea of meaninglessness. Irrelevant, weightless, inconsequential moment of existential hubris on the fast track to oblivion.
His real name is Count Douchenozzle von Stenchfahrter und Lichtendicks. - shemp

Last edited by Hlafordlaes; 5th November 2018 at 02:40 PM.
Hlafordlaes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2018, 03:24 PM   #103
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,421
Originally Posted by Hlafordlaes View Post
In terms of modelling the natural world, the scientific method is the only one that produces valid and reliable knowledge: things are what you expect, and repeatedly so.
And if you're not modeling the natural world -- which, honestly, is not something a lot of humans do all the time -- then other factors may lead to a more equitable outcome. Even better, the OP article says that issues arising from observer effects are of particular interest to theoretical physicists. And indeed they are, because those kinds of theoretical-physics observer effects are what keep us from making progress toward a unified model of the physical world as physicists try to mode it -- which only rarely affects how other scientists model their understanding of the physical world. It has nothing at all to do with "worldview" or philosophical relativism.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2018, 03:29 PM   #104
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 84,546
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
Note the limit on "real".
And again you show your misunderstanding, nowhere in the article does it even suggest we donít interact with reality. Indeed the article only makes sense if we do interact with reality.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2018, 03:34 PM   #105
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 84,546
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
I am glad you asked.

Here it is.
Cognitive relativism is a fact just like gravity is a fact.
Both are necessary, but not sufficient in explaining reality.

Here is the test for cognitive relativism:
Human one: Cognitive relativism is not a fact.
Human two: I agree.
Human three: I disagree.
You can't explain reality without cognitive relativism, because when you do so, you confirm cognitive relativism. You disagree with another human and that requires cognitive relativism.
You can't explain how humans can have different understanding of reality without using cognitive relativism.

But you can do the following: Claim that cognitive relativism is pointless. Not that is not a fact, it is a belief, but that belief can be explained using cognitive relativism.
That you say that the fact that I have a different understand of reality is pointless, is a belief for the part of being pointless.
Now you can't explain how I in fact can understand reality differently, because you don't explain it. You explain it away as being pointless. You can believe that all you like, but that confirms cognitive relativism.
Oh my goodness you’ve now added “cognitive “into your idiosyncratic use of the English language.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2018, 03:40 PM   #106
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 84,546
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
There is a difference between hard facts and social convention/culture.
Gravity is the same to all humans, but e.g. what reality actually is, is not the same.
Gravity is reality, or rather it is one of the observations we use to create the models we use to make successful predictions.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2018, 05:32 PM   #107
p0lka
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,126
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
It is connected.
Reality is in part e.g. gravity and ethics. They are connected and not irrelevant to each other.
what? gravity is an objective phenomenon whereas ethics is subjective and can be different for different groups.
How are they connected?
I would love to see the venn diagram that has them both together.

Last edited by p0lka; 5th November 2018 at 05:35 PM.
p0lka is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2018, 06:50 PM   #108
Myriad
Hyperthetical
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: A pocket paradise between the sewage treatment plant and the railroad
Posts: 14,394
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
There is a difference between hard facts and social convention/culture.
Gravity is the same to all humans, but e.g. what reality actually is, is not the same.

The logical conclusion of your syllogism is that gravity is not actually real.

Does that make gravity a hard fact or a social convention?
__________________
A zÝmbie once bit my sister...
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th November 2018, 02:13 AM   #109
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,578
Hi JayUtah

In short, since I have a false understanding as per reason, logic and evidence of what reality is, then how come that you can know this?

That is the problem not for you, but for the "you" on this forum, so it is to this "you", I direct the following of this post:
That is your problem all the way down: You and I have different models of reality, yet they are both a part of reality, otherwise you couldn't know that I have a false understanding.
But since you know this, it is a part of reality. And that is what you can't explain. You don't explain how this is, because you explain it away as not a part of reality.
That leads to a contradiction: You know only of reality, yet you know of non-reality, because you know, that my model is not a part of how reality works.

To explain that you need to understand this:
Quote:
These examples bring us to a conclusion that provides an important framework with which to interpret modern science. In our view, there is no picture- or theory-independent concept of reality. Instead we adopt a view that we call model-dependent realism: the idea that a physical theory or world picture is a model (generally of a mathematical nature) and a set of rules that connect the elements of the model to observations. According to model-dependent realism, it is pointless to ask whether a model is real, only whether it agrees with observation. If two models agree with observation, neither one can be considered more real than the other. A person can use whichever model is more convenient in the situation under consideration.
All claims of what reality is, are cases of model-dependent realism, because what reality is, is a rule.
I know this and you don't, because you don't understand that the word "reality" is a rule.
As observation goes, I can explain this observation:
Human one: "Reality is the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them."
Human two: "Yes."
Human three: "No."
You don't explain that "no" as a part of reality and you don't have to. It works for you, but it doesn't work for me, hence cognitive relativism.

Hi JayUtah Now it is for you.
I don't do science as natural science. I do science in the broad sense, including that which is false. That is what makes me a different kind of skeptic, than the most skeptics here.
I like false, because I allows me to understand reality in a more complete manner, than those who go for the verification of "real".

More later.
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th November 2018, 05:18 AM   #110
Sideroxylon
Featherless biped
 
Sideroxylon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Aporia
Posts: 19,980
Originally Posted by Hlafordlaes View Post
In terms of modelling the natural world, the scientific method is the only one that produces valid and reliable knowledge: things are what you expect, and repeatedly so. That is what "authoritative" is: knowledge that works. Unless you prefer the arbitrary and capricious whim of a bully, the mindless authority of brute force alone.

As for woo, well, to each his own imaginings, and whatever elevates your carpet.
And this pragmatic stance contains a door onto scientific realism through Putnam’s no miracles argument. We have all of these highly successful models of the universe as it is beyond our everyday experience it follows through best explanation that they are accurately mapping it out. The alternative and rejected explanation is that their success is chance or miraculous.
__________________
'The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool.' - Richard Feynman

Last edited by Sideroxylon; 6th November 2018 at 05:28 AM.
Sideroxylon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th November 2018, 05:19 AM   #111
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,578
Later.

How gravity and ethics are connected?

If you accept as I do the "ladder"; i.e you start with physics and end with human psychology, sociology and what not, then how does that play out for gravity -> ethics.

Well, if the physical constants(fixed nature) was different including gravity you wouldn't have live.
But there is more, if gravity is objective and ethics is subjective then how can they be connected. Here is how the natural world started with physics, then you got chemistry, some of that got you biochemistry/biology/evolution. Evolution is what gets you subjectivity, i.e. the replication of the fittest gene gives rise to competition among humans and the reasons, we all give, are subjective.

About the mind and "I", I don't have a mind. This brain has an "I" and a mind. Both are in themselves epiphenomenological. They don't cause any thing themselves. They are caused by brains, but brains cause subjectivity.
Test:
Human one: "Brains cause subjectivity."
Human two: "Yes."
Human three: "No."
Again you can explain it away as one of the positions being false, but both are observable hence a part of the natural world.
Now make a scientific model and explanation which covers both observations and covers other explanations includes different versions of real, what matters and so on. And you get moral and cognitive relativism including if "false" is a part of the natural world or not.

Here is a beauty from philosophy and please learn that this is not how to do it with reason, logic and evidence:
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/logic.html
Quote:
...A contradiction cannot exist. An atom is itself, and so is the universe; neither can contradict its own identity; nor can a part contradict the whole. No concept man forms is valid unless he integrates it without contradiction into the total sum of his knowledge. To arrive at a contradiction is to confess an error in one’s thinking; to maintain a contradiction is to abdicate one’s mind and to evict oneself from the realm of reality.
Notice the fun part - if a contradiction cannot exist, how can you arrive at it and maintain it? Further where is the mind if not in reality?

Some people treat false in some degree as really unreal.
Test:
Human one: "False is unreal".
Human two: "Yes."
Human three: "No."
Again we end in philosophy as ontology, because what are doesn't exist, unreal, not in reality and so on.
And if doesn't exist is unreal, how do you know that?

More later, this time about qualia and non-reductive physicalism as it connects to the natural world.
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th November 2018, 05:27 AM   #112
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 77,269
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
Blue to one and red to another. Its wavelength is something else.
No, color is defined as wavelength. You're confusing perception with reality.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th November 2018, 05:29 AM   #113
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 77,269
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
That is a fair question.
Here is the short answer.
Any theory of everything can't be a theory of everything, if it is possible to hold contradictory views of everything including 2 different models of the same.
If everything was hard facts, then it wouldn't be possible to hold different worldviews. It is a fact, that there are different worldviews, hence not all of reality are cases of hard facts; i.e. cognitive relativism.
Everything IS hard fact. You're confusing a map with an actual place.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th November 2018, 05:35 AM   #114
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,578
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Everything IS hard fact. You're confusing a map with an actual place.
So the map is a hard fact?
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th November 2018, 05:48 AM   #115
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 77,269
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
So the map is a hard fact?
The physical map exists. But you still can't go to Middle Earth.

Again, this is the sort of thing that a four year old understands.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th November 2018, 05:50 AM   #116
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 84,546
Originally Posted by Sideroxylon View Post
And this pragmatic stance contains a door onto scientific realism through Putnamís no miracles argument. We have all of these highly successful models of the universe as it is beyond our everyday experience it follows through best explanation that they are accurately mapping it out. The alternative and rejected explanation is that their success is chance or miraculous.
Or as I put it "it does what it says on the tin". I'm simply not interested in anything that doesn't do that, it's a waste of time. Of course I am interested why some people are happy to use a model that doesn't do what it says on the tin, for example religious doctrine, or someone who believes that people can bend spoons. It's the human behaviour and the harm that comes from using a model that doesn't do what it says on the tin, for example fake cancer cures, that I find the most interesting.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th November 2018, 05:58 AM   #117
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,578
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
The physical map exists. But you still can't go to Middle Earth.

Again, this is the sort of thing that a four year old understands.
So brains and maps are physical, just as the belief in a god.
Everything is hard facts including the counter claim of "no".
There is nothing to explain in your model, because everything is the same.
Take these 2 sentences:
"Everything is hard facts."
"No!"

Both are hard facts themselves so we agree.
"Everything is meaningless" is a hard fact.
It is a fact in my brain and it is a fact as it is written.
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th November 2018, 06:03 AM   #118
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 77,269
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
So brains and maps are physical, just as the belief in a god.
Everything is hard facts including the counter claim of "no".
There is nothing to explain in your model, because everything is the same.
Take these 2 sentences:
"Everything is hard facts."
"No!"

Both are hard facts themselves so we agree.
"Everything is meaningless" is a hard fact.
It is a fact in my brain and it is a fact as it is written.
As I said: four year-olds understand the distinction. You don't. Think about that.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th November 2018, 06:10 AM   #119
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,578
Originally Posted by Sideroxylon View Post
And this pragmatic stance contains a door onto scientific realism through Putnamís no miracles argument. We have all of these highly successful models of the universe as it is beyond our everyday experience it follows through best explanation that they are accurately mapping it out. The alternative and rejected explanation is that their success is chance or miraculous.
So now I am pragmatic. It works for me to believe that pragmatic is a case of:
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/...atisscience_12
Some form of combination of morality, aesthetic and how to use knowledge.

Instrumentalism: a pragmatic philosophical approach which regards an activity (such as science, law, or education) chiefly as an instrument or tool for some practical purpose, rather than in more absolute or ideal terms.

A practical purpose is always to some human as what is practical to that human.
I just find it practical to do it differently that you.

Science is authoritative for the tests, experiments and observations, but it doesn't tell you how you should live all of your live and how that compares to other humans. To compare is not science as for good lives, a better world or how inter-human authority works in practice.
The authority of science is limited.
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th November 2018, 06:13 AM   #120
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,578
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
As I said: four year-olds understand the distinction. You don't. Think about that.
There is no distinction, because both parts are hard facts. That I don't understand is a hard fact. And that you understand differently is a hard fact.
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:38 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.