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 12th August 2019, 10:28 AM   #361
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 19,935
Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
Does some girl you fancy reciprocate the feeling to the extent of actually loving you? Only you can answer that question to your satisfaction.
Horse swaggle.

You don't get to define the chemical makeup of another person's brain, which is all that love is. If her brain has the proper levels and ratios of dopamine, serotonin, oxytocin, and endorphin she is in love. This is an objective fact.

Whether or not your brain has the chemical makeup to love her back is another thing, but it's an objective fact that is or isn't true.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is online now   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 12th August 2019, 10:38 AM   #362
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,401
That could be, actually. Hadn't thought of it like that. Sure, one could get one's girlfriend to get bloodwork done, and an MRI, and objectively decide if she does love one. Agreed, in theory at least, that might work.


Also, I see I'm conflating two things here. First, as halleyscomet asks, what is love (or what degree of love); and second, what amounts to sufficient evidence for it.

That said, when it comes to everyday social cues, how much evidence is adequate? Can that be objective? I'm no longer as emphatic as I was before reading your post, but I guess I'd still go for a yes.





eta:
By the way, Joe, my original post wasn't so much about whether something -- love, or the destance between moon and earth -- is objective (it is -- I'm not suggesting otherwise at all; and your post shows up the limitation of the love analogy), but about whether the necessary rigor of evidence, whether that is subjective, that floor, that threshhold.

Last edited by Chanakya; 12th August 2019 at 10:51 AM.
Chanakya 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 12th August 2019, 10:57 AM   #363
JesseCuster
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 966
Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
I would say it is.

Does some girl you fancy reciprocate the feeling to the extent of actually loving you? Only you can answer that question to your satisfaction.
There are lot of questions only I can answer to my satisfaction. That does not make them "wholly subjective". The answer might not be obvious or cut and dried, but that simply means I might not be sure of the answer, not that the answer is wholly subjective.

"Does person X fancy me?" doesn't have have any more or less of a subjective answer than "Does person X like the Lord of the Rings movies?" Their feelings toward me or the Lord of the Rings movies are independent of whether or not I have the ability to answer those questions satisfactorily.

Last edited by JesseCuster; 12th August 2019 at 11:07 AM.
JesseCuster 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 12th August 2019, 11:14 AM   #364
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 19,935
That's the thing. "Personal emotional states" are not... random events. They are causative.

"I got mad" is not some special different kind of statement then "Water is wet."

"Mad" is a specific amount of certain chemicals in my brain. Love is a specific amount of certain chemicals in my brain. Enjoying or not enjoying a movie is a specific amount of certain chemicals in my brain. Liking or not liking tuna salad is a specific amount of certain chemicals in my brain. These are facts, not up for debate.

Even the big philosophical mic drop "Can science tell you if a painting is beautiful" can... easily be answered. A painting is beautiful to me if a certain chemical balance in my brain happens when I look at it, and before we turtle all the way down yes there's a reason for that chemical balance as well.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC

Last edited by JoeMorgue; 12th August 2019 at 11:26 AM.
JoeMorgue is online now   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 12th August 2019, 11:17 AM   #365
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,401
Originally Posted by JesseCuster View Post
There are lot of questions only I can answer to my satisfaction. That does not make them "wholly subjective". The answer might not be obvious or cut and dried, but that simply means I might not be sure of the answer, not that the answer is wholly subjective.

"Does person X fancy me?" doesn't have have any more or less of a subjective answer than "Does person X like the Lord of the Rings movies?" Their feelings toward me or the Lord of the Rings movies are independent of whether or not I have the ability to answer those questions satisfactorily.

You misunderstand me, I'm not suggesting for a minute that the thing itself is subjective.

Like I said just now to Joe, my point was, my question was, in that post of mine that you quoted a sentence from -- and okay, love may or may not be the best analogy there -- the rigor, the extent, the quality of the evidence required, is that subjective ?

For the love thing, it probably is, at least within reason. That was the point of my response to you. (Unless, like Joe, you want to haul your -- generic your -- girlfriend off for a brain scan, to arrive at an objective measure.)

But what about actual science? Is it subjective there as well, the extent and rigor and quality of evidence necessary? That last is what I wanted a practicing scientist's take on.

Last edited by Chanakya; 12th August 2019 at 11:19 AM.
Chanakya 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 12th August 2019, 11:19 AM   #366
halleyscomet
Philosopher
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 9,802
Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
Does some girl you fancy reciprocate the feeling to the extent of actually loving you? Only you can answer that question to your satisfaction.
That depends on if we quantify what we're measuring by the term, "love."

https://theconversation.com/what-is-...-science-59281
__________________
Look what I found! There's this whole web site full of skeptics that spun off from the James Randy Education Foundation!
halleyscomet 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 12th August 2019, 11:23 AM   #367
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,401
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
That's the thing. "Personal emotional states" are not... random events They are causative.

"I got mad" is not some special different kind of statement then "Water is wet."

"Mad" is a specific amount of certain chemicals in my brain. Love is a specific amount of certain chemicals in my brain. Enjoying or not enjoying a movie is a specific amount of certain chemicals in my brain. Liking or not liking tuna salad is a specific amount of certain chemicals in my brain. This are facts, not up for debate.

Even the big philosophical mic drop "Can science tell you if a painting is beautiful" can... easily be answered. A painting is beautiful to me if a certain chemical balance in my brain happens when I look at it, and before we turtle all the way down yes there's a reason for that chemical balance as well.

Sure. Point made, and point taken, like I already said. In theory at least, one can measure the chemicals in the brain, or whatever, to arrive at an objective answer. No disagreement there.
Chanakya 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 12th August 2019, 11:28 AM   #368
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 19,935
Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
Sure. Point made, and point taken, like I already said. In theory at least, one can measure the chemicals in the brain, or whatever, to arrive at an objective answer. No disagreement there.
Then what's the disagreement?

Because I'm starting to smell yet another.

"Oh I absolutely agree with you 100%."

*Wait for it*

*Wait for it*

*Wait for it*

"But..."

*There it is.*
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is online now   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 12th August 2019, 11:28 AM   #369
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,401
Originally Posted by halleyscomet View Post
That depends on if we quantify what we're measuring by the term, "love."

https://theconversation.com/what-is-...-science-59281

True. Like I said above, I realized, myself, I was conflating two separate things there, the what-is-love part (or how-much-love), and the quality-of-evidence part.

Btw, that link wouldn't open on my phone, so I missed, for now, any context you may have intended to convey with it.
Chanakya 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 12th August 2019, 11:35 AM   #370
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,401
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Then what's the disagreement?

I believe the amount of evidence, in a normal everyday sense (not the haul-off-your-gf-for-a-neural-scan-to-see-if-she-loves-you sense), that lets you decide if your gf loves you, is subjective. Whether you disagree, you'll have to say.

In any case, this is incidental to the question I'd asked, in my original post here.


Quote:
Because I'm starting to smell yet another.

"Oh I absolutely agree with you 100%."

*Wait for it*

*Wait for it*

*Wait for it*

"But..."

*There it is.*

This you'll have to take up with your nose.



What I smell, btw, is straw.

Last edited by Chanakya; 12th August 2019 at 11:38 AM.
Chanakya 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 12th August 2019, 01:02 PM   #371
Scorpion
Graduate Poster
 
Scorpion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,888
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Horse swaggle.

You don't get to define the chemical makeup of another person's brain, which is all that love is. If her brain has the proper levels and ratios of dopamine, serotonin, oxytocin, and endorphin she is in love. This is an objective fact.

Whether or not your brain has the chemical makeup to love her back is another thing, but it's an objective fact that is or isn't true.
Maybe the need for human reproduction could create the feeling of love in our chemistry. But I can testify to the fact I loved a pet bird, and she knew it.
When I first got her she bit me to the bone if I tried to handle her, but I seduced her by ticking her with a feather, and in the end she responded to me and used to come to me to be cuddled. I know love is more than chemistry.
__________________
You see many stars in the sky at night, but not when the sun rises. Can you therefore say there are no stars in the heavens during the day? O man because you cannot find God in the days of your ignorance, say not that there is no God.
Sri Ramakrishna
Even in the valley of the shadow of death two and two do not make six.
Leo Tolstoy
Scorpion 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 12th August 2019, 01:05 PM   #372
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 19,935
Originally Posted by Scorpion View Post
I know love is more than chemistry.
Well that's just another thing you're wrong about.

I'd ask how exactly you "know" this but...
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC

Last edited by JoeMorgue; 12th August 2019 at 01:13 PM.
JoeMorgue is online now   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 12th August 2019, 01:34 PM   #373
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,661
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
It's not necessary except to counter the "But can your cold, hard science show you love!!!!!!" nonsense.

Yes. Yes it can. Verily easily in fact.
While that is true, I think what David was going for also fails epically in a simpler way.

Let's say that, for whatever reason, you can't tell based on evidence whether someone loves you or not. And I really mean whatever reason. I don't care if one's argument is that no evidence is scientific enough for them, or they're just autistic, or they married a manipulative sociopath who makes it really really hard to tell, or whatever. Let's only say that the evidence they have or will accept isn't quite disproving the null hypothesis to their satisfaction.

Well... is getting that "knowledge" WITHOUT evidence -- i.e., via faith and magical thinking -- any easier or more reliable?

Seems to me like on the contrary, the domain of those who just "know" without evidence that someone loves them, is more like populated with such stereotypes as the deranged stalker, the abused spouse rationalizing it, and otherwise people who are SPECTACULARLY wrong about it. Claiming that one must abandon the evidence-based epistemology for that problem is quite trivially wrong. And quite often dangerous.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 12th August 2019 at 01:37 PM.
HansMustermann 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 12th August 2019, 01:37 PM   #374
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 19,935
Of course not. To people like David "science" is just a codeword for ideas that need to supported and "philosophy" is just a codeword for ideas that don't.

Hell if anything it's even more basic than that.

With science... you can be wrong. I've yet to see how you can be wrong (outside of not agreeing with David) in David's worldview.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is online now   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 12th August 2019, 05:44 PM   #375
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 21,891
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
I didn't say science is idolatry. Reductionism is not science. It is an ideology. I don't know if science is right 99% or 75% of the time -I don't know any article about this- but it's clear that it's the safest way to get the facts straight. In a conflict between science and something else I wouldn't hesitate.

But you were distancing yourself from reductionism. I don't know why you tell me the rest. Specially the dirty part. Beware of feces. You have to pay close attention to where they are and not take a wrong step.
Wow. You just don't get it. I am neither distancing myself from reductionism nor embracing it. I don't think about science philosophically and think it is a waste of time to do so.

What I am saying is your entire diatribe is absurd pedantic nonsense. I also didn't say that science was right 99 percent of the time. I said it was the best way to determine what is true 99 percent of the time. That maybe an exaggeration. There are probably lots of day to day things that we accept to be true that don't require a structured method of discovery.

Still, if it is important to understand something and feel confident. I'm going with science.
__________________
Try
Science, not superstition.
Reason, not revelation.
Education, not epiphanies
Intellect, not ignorance.
.
acbytesla is online now   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 12th August 2019, 11:24 PM   #376
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,294
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
And in my example about learning how far I can drive a car before needing to refuel, I'm using repetition of the same event: driving the same route. So, again, why doesn't that qualify for the scientific method?

I know that spewing generic BS instead of addressing the actual question is easier, but do try to follow.



Neither was the claim that it has to be peer-reviewed level evidence in the claim where you brought them up, actually. Your claim was just that you couldn't even go outside if you lived your life based on evidence. Your whole starting to run around with the goalposts about what is rigorous enough for published science wasn't even in that claim at all.

So... Yada, yada, cow goes moo, duck goes quack, and David Mo makes up some BS redefining the topic when he doesn't actually have a point. Which tends to be all the time. What else is new?

But to return to your examples, what you've actually said there is NOT that evidence isn't everything. All you've said there is that you're not bothered to look for evidence in a bunch of cases. Which isn't a limitation of the scientific method, it's just you not doing it. Saying that that's a limitation of the scientific method is like saying that my car must be broken, because I couldn't be bothered to drive it anywhere on the weekend.


Compare with:


Which one is it, silly? Because either it has to be perfect, or there is in fact a level where it's deemed controlled enough/sufficient. You can't have both.

Bonus points for not understanding that almost all evidence in science is circumstantial for the theory it supports. If it were direct evidence, that one is defined as leaving only one possibility being possible at all. So we could stop trying to falsify it or come up with a better explanation, because by definition it wouldn't be possible to have any other one.

But you're just making up what words mean as you go, as usual, right?



Why don't you actually ask one if there is such a thing as controlled enough, instead of making up imaginary students supporting your position?
I do not deny that you have a practical knowledge of how to fill your car's tank. It is based on a series of instructions you have been given by the company (principle of authority) and some immediate experience about where the tank inlet is, how the pump works, etc. That is knowledge. That's the thesis I'm defending. But, no matter how clever you think you are in doing so, that's not science.

If you want to realize the difference between science and mere practical knowledge, compare your knowledge of refueling your car with that of the NASA team designing a Martian exploration module. For example, do you realize that when you load your car with gasoline you don't control a lot of variables about operation of the motor, combustible, etc. and that the NASA team does?

Finally, neither the NASA team can be absolutely sure of controlling all the variables involved in its experiment. The same thing happens in any scientific explanation. Science is not absolute knowledge. But that doesn't make you Einstein when you refuel your car. Among other things because science is not only knowing how to do something but why. Among other things because it is one thing not to have absolute certainty of the variants and another not to have or idea of any. Among other things it would be very long to detail. I hope you realize the differences.
David Mo 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 12th August 2019, 11:26 PM   #377
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,294
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
That's a bit of a bugger for the medical sciences then. If only they could have come up with some way to account for the impossibility of rigorously controlling all possible variables in a complex biological system, that could do something useful like assigning a level of confidence to their results based on a hypothetical branch of mathematics that dealt with large amounts of uncertain data. But clearly that can only lead to experiments failing, so we can never have such a thing as medical science, and "evidence-based medicine is an oxymoron.

Dave
Human sciences have problems with control of variables. Medicine is not an exception. Therefore it is not as exact as physics.
David Mo 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 12th August 2019, 11:30 PM   #378
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,294
Originally Posted by JesseCuster View Post
Railing against scientism or reductionism or other -isms you don't like isn't going to change that. Nothing I said had anything to do with scientism or reductionism anyway, so there's not much point in directing your objections toward me on those subjects.
I don't think we'll change anything from this forum. If you don't profess scientism as a religion you don't have to feel alluded.
David Mo 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 12th August 2019, 11:34 PM   #379
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,294
Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
David's POV does raise one question (not one he's himself explicitly raised) : how rigorous must evidence be, in order for it to be considered scientific? Is there a rule, or is it entirely subjective?

When considering if X's wife loves X, it's wholly subjective. X may consider some woman smiling at him casually to be proof she loves him; or may considering her swearing blood oaths to be insufficient evidence; that is his business, and the rest of us may, at best, intersubjectively disagree with his particular standards.

But when it comes to science, how rigorous is minimally rigorous? I think that might be an interesting question, that actual practitioners of science could answer for the rest of us.

(Your view, Hans, seems to indicate subjectivity, with practicability, with what is feasible, the primary criterion. But perhaps I misunderstand you? At what point does the scientist say, below this threshhold of rigor in evidence, conclusions simply aren't scientific? Is that threshhold entirely suibjective, is my question.)
The demarcation problem you mention is very serious. I do not believe that there is a precise limit between what is science and what is not. But broadly speaking, the distinction can be made. I suppose you would agree that putting gasoline in the tank is not science.
David Mo 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 12th August 2019, 11:39 PM   #380
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,294
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
I can literally strap David into an MRI and objectively prove he "loves" his wife or not.

Within a few years we'll be able to alter the chemistry of David's and make him love or not love his wife.

Nothing subjective about it.

*And cue the "But wHAt abOUT dA QUALIA!" nonsense*
You've lost the north of the debate. We are discussing whether in everyday life we use other types of knowledge that are not science. I don't think you go with an MRI down the street. And I don't advise you to try to use it on your wife. I don't think she will took it too well.
David Mo 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 12th August 2019, 11:44 PM   #381
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,294
Originally Posted by JesseCuster View Post
There are lot of questions only I can answer to my satisfaction. That does not make them "wholly subjective". The answer might not be obvious or cut and dried, but that simply means I might not be sure of the answer, not that the answer is wholly subjective.
I agree. This is why we say that you know, even without a scientific evidence. Our friend Joe has not this problem because he walks down the street with a convoy of scientific equipment and knows scientifically everything.
David Mo 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 12th August 2019, 11:53 PM   #382
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,294
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Of course not. To people like David "science" is just a codeword for ideas that need to supported and "philosophy" is just a codeword for ideas that don't.

Hell if anything it's even more basic than that.

With science... you can be wrong. I've yet to see how you can be wrong (outside of not agreeing with David) in David's worldview.
Very simple. Participating in a debate and proposing ideas and reasons realising what the others say . Which you don't.

For example: science can say that a certain emotion produces or is produced by certain substances in the brain. But it cannot explain why certain works of art produce certain effects in the brain that others do not. That's what aesthetics is all about. And so far there is no scientific explanation of the beauty or evolution of artistic styles. If to evaluate the aesthetic impact of a work were thing to add or to remove fluids in the brain the art galleries would be directed by neurologists. This is not the case. Therefore aesthetics is not science.
David Mo 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 13th August 2019, 12:01 AM   #383
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,294
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Wow. You just don't get it. I am neither distancing myself from reductionism nor embracing it. I don't think about science philosophically and think it is a waste of time to do so.

What I am saying is your entire diatribe is absurd pedantic nonsense. I also didn't say that science was right 99 percent of the time. I said it was the best way to determine what is true 99 percent of the time. That maybe an exaggeration. There are probably lots of day to day things that we accept to be true that don't require a structured method of discovery.

Still, if it is important to understand something and feel confident. I'm going with science.
You're not interested in the philosophy of science. It is your right. Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg, Penrose, Feynman, Hawking and other great scientists were interested in philosophy of science. So do I.

By the way. I don't understand what are you doing in a forum on philosophy. There are other threads dedicated to science in this forum . You will be more at ease there. Is it not so?
David Mo 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 13th August 2019, 12:08 AM   #384
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,294
Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
Sure. Point made, and point taken, like I already said. In theory at least, one can measure the chemicals in the brain, or whatever, to arrive at an objective answer. No disagreement there.
Also to measure intensity, sincerity, direction or permanence of love? As I understand it, brain fluids can reveal an intense falling in love, but there are other less crazy forms of love that are not reflected.
I think we often confuse what science measures with the phenomenon as it occurs. Sometimes in order to obtain objectivity, science sacrifices complexity. I am referring to the human being, especially.

Last edited by David Mo; 13th August 2019 at 12:21 AM.
David Mo 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 13th August 2019, 02:51 AM   #385
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,661
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
I do not deny that you have a practical knowledge of how to fill your car's tank. It is based on a series of instructions you have been given by the company (principle of authority) and some immediate experience about where the tank inlet is, how the pump works, etc. That is knowledge. That's the thesis I'm defending. But, no matter how clever you think you are in doing so, that's not science.

If you want to realize the difference between science and mere practical knowledge, compare your knowledge of refueling your car with that of the NASA team designing a Martian exploration module. For example, do you realize that when you load your car with gasoline you don't control a lot of variables about operation of the motor, combustible, etc. and that the NASA team does?

Finally, neither the NASA team can be absolutely sure of controlling all the variables involved in its experiment. The same thing happens in any scientific explanation. Science is not absolute knowledge. But that doesn't make you Einstein when you refuel your car. Among other things because science is not only knowing how to do something but why. Among other things because it is one thing not to have absolute certainty of the variants and another not to have or idea of any. Among other things it would be very long to detail. I hope you realize the differences.
So, basically, just more nonsense flailing?

You haven't shown any reason why the scientific method is not just as applicable. Just because you said so, and apparently because NASA does more advanced stuff, so I guess nothing short of that qualifies then.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann 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 13th August 2019, 03:05 AM   #386
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,294
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
So, basically, just more nonsense flailing?

You haven't shown any reason why the scientific method is not just as applicable. Just because you said so, and apparently because NASA does more advanced stuff, so I guess nothing short of that qualifies then.

Watch what I tell you
:


I'm not denying that a scientific study can be made of the consumption of your car. It should be sufficient for a team from a university or a car firm to take care of it.

I am saying, and please note it, that is not what you usually do. You apply other kinds of knowledge that are not scientific. Lesser rigorous but knowledge at least.
David Mo 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 13th August 2019, 05:23 AM   #387
halleyscomet
Philosopher
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 9,802
Originally Posted by Scorpion View Post
I know love is more than chemistry.
__________________
Look what I found! There's this whole web site full of skeptics that spun off from the James Randy Education Foundation!
halleyscomet 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 13th August 2019, 05:35 AM   #388
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 29,491
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
In science there is no concept of "sufficient" control. Any lack of rigour in the control of variables makes your experiment fail. Any Physics student will tell you.
That's a bit of a bugger for the medical sciences then. If only they could have come up with some way to account for the impossibility of rigorously controlling all possible variables in a complex biological system, that could do something useful like assigning a level of confidence to their results based on a hypothetical branch of mathematics that dealt with large amounts of uncertain data. But clearly that can only lead to experiments failing, so we can never have such a thing as medical science, and "evidence-based medicine is an oxymoron.
Human sciences have problems with control of variables. Medicine is not an exception. Therefore it is not as exact as physics.
Which contradicts the statement you made earlier, that there is no such thing as 'sufficient' control; the fact that you are able to refer to a scale of differing levels of control between different branches of science requires that control of variables is not absolute in all branches of science. Yet experiments do not 'fail' in all branches of science except physics (where, I should point out, perfect control of variables is still an unrealisable ideal rather than a reality); experiments may be carried out to yield results to a level of confidence depending on the level of control achievable.

Only someone prfoundly ignorant of the way science operates in reality, rather than in some philosophical abstraction, could seriously make a comment such as "Any lack of rigour in the control of variables makes your experiment fail."

Dave
__________________
Inspiring discussion of Sharknado is not a good sign for the audience expectations of your new high-concept SF movie sequel.

- Myriad
Dave Rogers 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 13th August 2019, 05:43 AM   #389
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 87,244
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
I agree. This is why we say that you know, even without a scientific evidence. Our friend Joe has not this problem because he walks down the street with a convoy of scientific equipment and knows scientifically everything.
And this is yet more evidence that as I said your view of science is rather like a biblical literalist.
__________________
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 13th August 2019, 06:01 AM   #390
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 19,935
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
Very simple. Participating in a debate and proposing ideas and reasons realising what the others say . Which you don't.
You don't want a debate. You want everyone to gush over how deep you are but all you do is spout off gibberish.


Quote:
For example: science can say that a certain emotion produces or is produced by certain substances in the brain. But it cannot explain why certain works of art produce certain effects in the brain that others do not.
Well that's just wrong.

Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
You're not interested in the philosophy of science. It is your right. Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg, Penrose, Feynman, Hawking and other great scientists were interested in philosophy of science. So do I.
You listing off a list of scientist you know is no more impressive then you listing off a list of philosophers you know and you understand them about as well.

Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
You've lost the north of the debate. We are discussing whether in everyday life we use other types of knowledge that are not science. I don't think you go with an MRI down the street. And I don't advise you to try to use it on your wife. I don't think she will took it too well.
Oh what kind of crap is this? I'm not the one arguing that science can't explain love. I'm comfortable calling everyday observations science, you're the one demanding I bring in a full on lab and when I do you have a problem with that.

Grow up. Stop acting deepity and getting huffy when people see through it.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is online now   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 13th August 2019, 06:50 AM   #391
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,661
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
You're not interested in the philosophy of science. It is your right. Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg, Penrose, Feynman, Hawking and other great scientists were interested in philosophy of science. So do I.
1. Err, no. Nothing you've been pursuing in the sub-thread you've spawned and you're answering in has anything to do with the philosophy of science. In fact, for the last at least two pages you've defended the idea that you can get knowledge without any of that evidence and scientific method and stuff. And why if you can't get NASA level science, you can just give up and believe stuff anyway.

That's not the philosophy of science, that's the "philosophy" of magical thinking.

So, you know, please stop your usual motte-and-bailey fallacious arguing style of retreating into "I only claimed X", where X is a much smaller and more defensible claim.


2. Again, scientists do a lot of things in their free time. They have a lot of interests.

Einstein for example was also, shall we say, really into sex. In fact, as activities other than science go, womanizing was probably his biggest interest.

Bohr lived in a house that literally had a beer tap, connected with a pipe to a nearby brewery. You know, like other people have a running water tap. That guy had running beer

Heisenberg, sure, was quite obsessed with philosophy, but then he was also obsessed with classical music and was an accomplished pianist.

Feynman, now that's a fun guy. He tried acting, he has cracking safes as a hobby, he drove a large van decorated with physics diagrams, and he used a topless bar as a sort of office. A lot of his writing was in fact done at a table in the topless bar. He also claimed to have synaesthesia, e.g., seeing certain letters in different colours.

Etc.

It doesn't somehow make any of those an alternative to science by association. Just because Feynman spent more time within line of sight of naked tits than anywhere near a lab, doesn't mean that appreciating tits is an alternative to science. And just because Einstein was into womanizing, doesn't mean that Quagmire from Family Guy is the wisest man ever
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 13th August 2019 at 06:51 AM.
HansMustermann 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 13th August 2019, 07:12 AM   #392
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,401
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
The demarcation problem you mention is very serious.

Yeah, I did think it might be interesting to have the take of actual practitioners of science, people who actually do science, on this.


Quote:
I do not believe that there is a precise limit between what is science and what is not. But broadly speaking, the distinction can be made. I suppose you would agree that putting gasoline in the tank is not science.

Well, thinking about this, yes and no. Depends on who's doing this, and why, and how. At least that is how it appears to me.

Most people, or at least many people, don't really know about the 'how' of the mechanism of cars with any great certitude, they simply do what they've seen everyone else do, unthinkingly as it were. I guess that's probably not science, although yes, they are "following the evidence" in a very broad sense.

After all, you can think of Aztecs following the evidence, in this same broad sense, when they sacrificed people to the sun god, and hey presto, the sun shone out again the next day.

I guess -- IMO, and I could be wrong -- someone filling gasoline in their car can be thought of as science, in the sense of really following the evidence in any sense other than the purely trivial, if they actually took the trouble to understand the mechanism in some detail, and especially if they actually -- this is kind of a joke, but only kind of -- one day filled their car with water instead of gasoline, to see if that also might work.
Chanakya 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 13th August 2019, 07:15 AM   #393
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,401
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
Also to measure intensity, sincerity, direction or permanence of love? As I understand it, brain fluids can reveal an intense falling in love, but there are other less crazy forms of love that are not reflected.
I
think we often confuse what science measures with the phenomenon as it occurs. Sometimes in order to obtain objectivity, science sacrifices complexity. I am referring to the human being, especially.

I really don't know enough about this to comment, one way or the other.

But at least in theory, I guess every kind of crazy form of everything, including love, can be reduced to brain chemicals and neural firings, right? Perhaps not in practice, and perhaps not at this time, but at least in theory.
Chanakya 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 13th August 2019, 09:14 AM   #394
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 21,891
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
You're not interested in the philosophy of science. It is your right. Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg, Penrose, Feynman, Hawking and other great scientists were interested in philosophy of science. So do I.

By the way. I don't understand what are you doing in a forum on philosophy. There are other threads dedicated to science in this forum . You will be more at ease there. Is it not so?
Sure they were.

Frankly, I don't know what you're talking about 95 percent of the time. And I doubt the problem is me.

I have no problem talking about philosophy and I have no problem talking about science. But the philosophy of science almost seems like an oxymoron. There may be philosophical reasons we may or may not conduct a specific experiment and there may be a philosophical argument about what science has discovered. But talking about the philosophy of science seems like some form of masturbation. Personally, I am not interested in a circle jerk.
__________________
Try
Science, not superstition.
Reason, not revelation.
Education, not epiphanies
Intellect, not ignorance.
.

Last edited by acbytesla; 13th August 2019 at 09:33 AM.
acbytesla is online now   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 13th August 2019, 11:37 PM   #395
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,294
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Which contradicts the statement you made earlier, that there is no such thing as 'sufficient' control; the fact that you are able to refer to a scale of differing levels of control between different branches of science requires that control of variables is not absolute in all branches of science. Yet experiments do not 'fail' in all branches of science except physics (where, I should point out, perfect control of variables is still an unrealisable ideal rather than a reality); experiments may be carried out to yield results to a level of confidence depending on the level of control achievable.

Only someone prfoundly ignorant of the way science operates in reality, rather than in some philosophical abstraction, could seriously make a comment such as "Any lack of rigour in the control of variables makes your experiment fail."

Dave
There is no contradiction.

Maximum rigor does not mean absolute certainty. In science the maximum rigour in the control of variables is enforceable. The loss of control implies the loss of validity in the conclusions. That is why in the human sciences the difficulties in controlling variables is one of the main problems.If you read articles on psychology, for example, you would see that this is the great reproach they make to each other. Such a loss of control would be inadmissible in the physical sciences.

I don't see where you see the contradiction. There is no "sufficient" control. Either you control the variable age, sex or education, for example, or you don't control it. If you do not control it and it is a variable that influences the result, your study loses its validity. I have just read how the conclusions of an experiment on differences between men's and women's brain locations were rejected because the age of women had not been controlled and thus a variable that was not collected at work had crept in.
David Mo 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 13th August 2019, 11:39 PM   #396
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,294
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
And this is yet more evidence that as I said your view of science is rather like a biblical literalist.
What evidence are you talking about? You're out of control.
David Mo 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 13th August 2019, 11:47 PM   #397
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,294
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post

Well that's just wrong.


I'm not the one arguing that science can't explain love. I'm comfortable calling everyday observations science, you're the one demanding I bring in a full on lab and when I do you have a problem with that.
You haven't get the irony. I don't know if I have to explain it to you. Then the joke is lost. I'll try anyway.

It is one thing to say that science can explain something through the use of complex technology and under laboratory conditions. For example, how many layers of paint does Leonardo's Virgin of the Rocks have.
Another thing is that someone can know something without that technology and in everyday life. In everyday life you cannot directly know the layers of Leonardo's the Virgin of the Rock. You can say at most that you like the red color of the angel's mantle. Or that it is a vermilion red.

If you see the difference we can move on to the second part of the explanation.

I would like to know how you explain scientifically the reasons why someone prefers Rembrandt to Tintoretto. Ah, sure, with the MRI you carry in your backpack! (Don't sweat it. It's another irony).
David Mo 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 13th August 2019, 11:52 PM   #398
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,294
Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
Well, thinking about this, yes and no. Depends on who's doing this, and why, and how. At least that is how it appears to me.

Most people, or at least many people, don't really know about the 'how' of the mechanism of cars with any great certitude, they simply do what they've seen everyone else do, unthinkingly as it were. I guess that's probably not science, although yes, they are "following the evidence" in a very broad sense.

After all, you can think of Aztecs following the evidence, in this same broad sense, when they sacrificed people to the sun god, and hey presto, the sun shone out again the next day.

I guess -- IMO, and I could be wrong -- someone filling gasoline in their car can be thought of as science, in the sense of really following the evidence in any sense other than the purely trivial, if they actually took the trouble to understand the mechanism in some detail, and especially if they actually -- this is kind of a joke, but only kind of -- one day filled their car with water instead of gasoline, to see if that also might work.
Your problem is that you don't make any demarcation between science and non-science. If looking out the window and seeing it raining is as scientific as thinking the theory of relativity, our language becomes a puree. If they are two different things, where is the difference? I would say that in the use of a method: the hypothetical deductive (hypothetyco-deductive)

Of course I do. You can study the mechanics of the engine , learn some science and apply it. But that's not the case I was raising. I spoke of the daily activity of a person who refers to areas in which he is not an expert.

Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
I really don't know enough about this to comment, one way or the other.

But at least in theory, I guess every kind of crazy form of everything, including love, can be reduced to brain chemicals and neural firings, right? Perhaps not in practice, and perhaps not at this time, but at least in theory.
I would say that the advance of neuroscience indicates that there is a relationship of dependence between our mental activity and some activities of the brain. But that relationship is far from being detailed and understood for the most part. Establishing those details is more of a program than a certainty.
David Mo 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 14th August 2019, 12:06 AM   #399
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,294
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
2. Again, scientists do a lot of things in their free time. They have a lot of interests.

(...)
It doesn't somehow make any of those an alternative to science by association. Just because Feynman spent more time within line of sight of naked tits than anywhere near a lab, doesn't mean that appreciating tits is an alternative to science.
I don't know how to tell you that I don't think philosophy is an alternative to science. Here I put it in Swahili just in case:

Falsafa sio mbadala wa sayansi.

If you mean to say that the scientists I quoted were devoted to philosophy in their spare time, we can say so. But that doesn't make philosophy a porn hobby. Unlike watching sadomasochistic videos, the scientists I spoke of wrote books talking about philosophy, published articles on philosophy of science in prestigious journals, gave lectures where they explained their point of view, argued heatedly among themselves, etc. There is a very clear explanation: many parts of philosophy are directly related to science. See boob magazines, no.

Remember that:

FALSAFA SIO MBADALA WA SAYANSI!

Last edited by David Mo; 14th August 2019 at 12:07 AM.
David Mo 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 14th August 2019, 12:18 AM   #400
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,661
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
I don't know how to tell you that I don't think philosophy is an alternative to science.
So then what you're saying is that you're just doing a red herring on your own sub-thread about getting some knowledge in other ways then the scientific method?

Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
Here I put it in Swahili just in case:

Falsafa sio mbadala wa sayansi.
Cute. Retarded, but cute

Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
If you mean to say that the scientists I quoted were devoted to philosophy in their spare time, we can say so. But that doesn't make philosophy a porn hobby. Unlike watching sadomasochistic videos, the scientists I spoke of wrote books talking about philosophy, published articles on philosophy of science in prestigious journals, gave lectures where they explained their point of view, argued heatedly among themselves, etc. There is a very clear explanation: many parts of philosophy are directly related to science. See boob magazines, no.

Remember that:

FALSAFA SIO MBADALA WA SAYANSI!
1. You're still doing a by association fallacy. I mean, by that kind of logic, Newton spent a lot of time and effort on alchemy, therefore alchemy must be related to science

2. "Related to" is still irrelevant to the topic of getting knowledge by other means than science. I mean, astrology is technically related to astronomy, but that doesn't say much.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 14th August 2019 at 12:21 AM.
HansMustermann 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 09:08 AM.
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.