RE: For contemplation...

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: For contemplation...

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: For contemplation...

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: For contemplation... - 8/16/2006 10:19:59 AM

SusanofO

Posts: 5672
Joined: 12/19/2005
Status: offline

Well, I agree that perception is reality.

I think it's possible it may be important to the person whose reality it actually is, and not as much, or at all, to anyone else, though.

- Susan

< Message edited by SusanofO -- 8/16/2006 10:20:40 AM >

_____________________________

"Hope is the thing with feathers,
That perches in the soul,
And sings the tune without the words,
And never stops at all". - Emily Dickinson

(in reply to MHOO314)

Profile

Post #: 41

RE: For contemplation... - 8/16/2006 10:34:12 AM

LuckyAlbatross

Posts: 19224
Joined: 10/25/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Daddy4UdderSlut
From your statements, you would argue that the fact that the scientific view of nature evolves is evidence that it doesn't work.

No, my point is much more foundational than that and really a basic question.

Epistemiologically, how do we know that we know anything? If we can't know that we know anything, then we can't make any conclusions based on our knowledge.

quote:

Certain disciplines, such as chemistry, which are more mature in the ability of theory to account for observation, actually don't change very rapidly anymore.

Which is to say "The longer something goes unchallenged, the more likely it is to be true"

If we ignore all of the basic questions of knowledge (which we must do in order to even have a discussion at all), by scientific method, this idea is correct.

But it's also true that no "science" is perfect or can go out on a limb to say that they have "the answers." They have answers that, based upon all of the foundations that they ASSUME to be true, are LIKELY to also be true.

This is a far far distant cry from saying "This is how it is and so this is how it must be."

quote:

Science is quite distinct from philosophy in that there is competition for explaining nature. The competition is played out in public forums (the peer reviewed scientific literature). Correctness is not judged by self-consistency of arbitrary sets of statements. Rather, it's judged by experimental observations from nature which either support or contradict the theory. Competition, peer review, and the requirement that assertions be backed up by observations... that's a very powerful system. Perfect, no, but it sure as hell works.

The fact that you don't think this same process of competition, peer review, publication and evolution of philosophical thought doesn't happen in the philosophical arena shows that you don't have much exposure to it.

quote:

There is nothing to stop you from making whatever statements you wish on an internet forum, regardless of their validity. On the notion that science is arbitrary or merely thrashing aimlessly about in the unknowable, I'll just point out the fact that we are not still living in caves, in the darkness.

I never said or implied that science was abritrary or aimless, nor that we do not know anything, nor making any basic Platonic references.

I'm pointing out that all we assume to be true and known is, in "fact," still only assumptions. You'll have to explain to me how YOU happen to know you aren't in a cave anymore. And if you can do that better than any of the other brilliant philosophers have in the past few thousands of years and somehow solve that problem that has yet to be solved, then you really should get yourself published.

_____________________________

Find stable partners, not a stable of partners.

"Sometimes my whore logic gets all fuzzy"- Californication

(in reply to Daddy4UdderSlut)

Profile

Post #: 42

RE: For contemplation... - 8/16/2006 10:41:58 AM

Rule

Posts: 10479
Joined: 12/5/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Daddy4UdderSlut
Competition, peer review, and the requirement that assertions be backed up by observations... that's a very powerful system. Perfect, no, but it sure as hell works.

I am not enthusiastic about peer review, nor about the way science articles are published. I am sure that you are well aware that both infrequently - and righteously - are the subject of intense discussion.

(in reply to Daddy4UdderSlut)

Profile

Post #: 43

RE: For contemplation... - 8/16/2006 11:00:02 AM

Daddy4UdderSlut

Posts: 240
Joined: 4/2/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LuckyAlbatross
No, my point is much more foundational than that and really a basic question.

Epistemiologically, how do we know that we know anything? If we can't know that we know anything, then we can't make any conclusions based on our knowledge.

Well, that's really quite a predicament, isn't it? I would say that if we a logically consistent theory, which also maps onto all known observations, then we can usefully assume it is true.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LuckyAlbatross
Which is to say "The longer something goes unchallenged, the more likely it is to be true".

No. You are misstating that. Within research, experiments are continually done, and new observations are continually made. Within application, the existing theory is applied (in for example, commercial products which are used), and new observations are made from the field. These observations will either be consistent, or inconsistent with theory. To the extent that they are consistent over time, they reinforce it with their numbers. To the extent that anything contradicts theory, it is a red flag, that focuses attention rather sharply on a seeming contradiction. It is then the task to see if the observation was in error, if the theory needs to be modified, or simply discarded and replaced with a new one that can account for all that has now been observed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LuckyAlbatross
The fact that you don't think this same process of competition, peer review, publication and evolution of philosophical thought doesn't happen in the philosophical arena shows that you don't have much exposure to it.

Peer review in all disciplines is *not* the same. Tell me what experimental data from nature are required to form the foundation of all philosophical papers? That grounding in the physical world for science *is* a fundamental difference, whether you will acknowledge it or not.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LuckyAlbatross
you really should get yourself published.

I am published. Many times. I have given many talks at both open and invitation-only symposia. I have been attacked many times by my competitors. My insights have influenced the course of understanding. Do I assert that science has all the answers? No. No knowledgeable person would. Do I assert that I have all the answers? Of course not. I am smart enough to understand my own limitations, and I have known people far more clever and knowledgeable than I. But I am also smart enough to distinguish well between what I do understand and what I do not. That's what I think distinguishes me from the average person.

< Message edited by Daddy4UdderSlut -- 8/16/2006 11:01:14 AM >

(in reply to LuckyAlbatross)

Profile

Post #: 44

RE: For contemplation... - 8/16/2006 11:08:01 AM

Rule

Posts: 10479
Joined: 12/5/2005
Status: offline

Philosophers do not impress me. None of them has ever made sense.

(in reply to Daddy4UdderSlut)

Profile

Post #: 45

RE: For contemplation... - 8/16/2006 11:17:31 AM

Daddy4UdderSlut

Posts: 240
Joined: 4/2/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule
I am sure that you are well aware that both frequently - and righteously - are the subject of intense discussion.

It's my opinion, that the major drawbacks to "the system" as it were, are simply the result of human nature. For example... Papers by the most distinguished researchers are intrinsically less likely to be challenged than others. Why? First of all, human nature has a certain bias that makes most people judge new acts from someone by what they already know about them. Secondly, some people will simply be intimidated by "the big names". What can we do about that? Change human nature?

Also, many challenges to work are motivated at least by jealousies or other forms of competition. While questionable human behavior, this is actually not as problematic as it may seem, as challenges, regardless of their motivation are (almost) inevitably healthy for the system, as they cause things to be examined more closely.

There are certain scientists who are corrupt, and who will argue (more in the policy domain) viewpoints for personal gain... as when scientists on the payroll of a "think tank" funded by an energy consortium argue that global warming is not occurring. In reality, such arguements rarely do much to influence those "in the know", but they can of course be quite harmful in influencing the opinions of the lay public and its legislators. How we stop such arguements from ever being made? Scientists are only people, no better or worse than any other.

Issues confronting journals include for one thing, their sheer proliferation. This dilutes the quality of the primary literature. There are only so many good ideas and important results to go around. But, academic scientists in particular are often judged in their job performance by the quantity of their publications. So, there is kind of a built-in tendancy to increase this number, which I believe is a driving force in the creation of so many new journals.

(in reply to Rule)

Profile

Post #: 46

RE: For contemplation... - 8/17/2006 4:35:15 PM

MHOO314

Posts: 3628
Joined: 9/26/2004
Status: offline

and what is your definition of reality?

_____________________________

SLUTS: Southern Ladies Under Tremendous Stress...

Mistress Hathor

(in reply to Daddy4UdderSlut)

Profile

Post #: 47

RE: For contemplation... - 8/17/2006 6:17:35 PM

Daddy4UdderSlut

Posts: 240
Joined: 4/2/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MHOO314

and what is your definition of reality?

Reality: I have no grand, or irrefutable definition of reality, no clever test that can in all cases be called upon to distinguish mere 'appearence' from reality. Just a working definition. I choose to accept my perceptions as reality, unless or until there is any evidence to the contrary, some incongruity between multiple perceptions, or between perceptions and knowledge.

I recognize that one can say, e.g., "How do you know that you're not actually just dreaming everything that you believe you've experienced for the past ten years"... Or, more generally, "How do you know that X isn't what's really happening?" (and for the idea X, substitute any of an infinite number of completely arbitrary, often foolish, yet impossible to disprove assertions of possible alternate realities.

And my answer to all of those is both humble and economical - I can't. But I don't waste my time considering the validity of any old conjecture, no matter how silly or how little evidence supports it, merely because it cannot be disproven. Such things are by definition unproductive, and I don't consider them as such to be "profound". It takes no great creativity or intellect to synthesize unassailable nonsense if we simply require no evidence (just look at the Intelligent Design folks, for example ;-)))....

Some of my fellow scientists consider me a theoretician, but in this matter I am quite practical - don't waste precious time considering the unsupported, the absurd or the unknowable, or even worse, the unsupported *and* absurd *and* unknowable. I quite happily leave those pursuits to others.

(in reply to MHOO314)

Profile

Post #: 48