Refuting the Matrix Argument (Or: Why Stoned College Kids Make Bad Philosophers)

[Soulewolf]

Question on the matrix argument.

Recent neurological studies have shown that there is a time lapse between sensation from direct brain stimulation (say on a fingertip) and nerve stimulation. It takes a person longer to feel sensation from direct brain stimulation than it does from nerve stimulation. Nerve stimulation is (im not a professional on the subject, but ive read this) instantaneous as far as ive heard, while it takes longer for direct brain stimulation (because of this many people have linked brain activity to quantum activity and compare it to such experiments where it seems info is traveling back in time, like the quantum eraser. fascinating subject, but not really relevant to the conversation).

This would mean that if there was a computer hooked up to our brains in an objectively “real” world and this was an illusion, then after the computer sent info to our brains, nerve stimulation would take as long as direct brain stimulation, and brain stimulation would take double the amount of time. This means that there would have to be a “storage area” in the brain where impulses from direct brain stimulation were stored before being processed. So far as we know, the brain does not work like this.

I dont see any holes in the argument, so i want a second opinion. Does this argument hold water?

 

[Betterave]

Whatever absurdity or soberness we might assign to the origin of the hypothesis has zero bearing on its merit (see my comment on the “anonymous hypothesis” slipped under the door in an unmarked envelope – little to nothing is known of the provenance of the idea, and nothing need be known). To complain that is “absurd” is to fail to see that’s the very reason I used that example, because of the crazy context of the iinspiration (reportedly). If you understand this, complaining that it is “absurd” as an epistemic warrant for knowledge, an idea that proceeds from hallucinogens, doesn’t follow as an objection. It would be responsive to say “No, one must justify one’s hypotheses, and here’s how one does that, how one garners the appropriate credential for having a hunch”.

That addresses my point, even as it disagrees. “That’s absurd as a basis for a hypothesis” shoots right by what I said. It complains by agreeing with my statements!

When I ask you, “WHAT is to miss your point?”, I am simply asking for clarification of what you think I said. I don’t need you to repeat the same argument that you have made. So please, with reference to what I actually said, WHAT is to miss your point?..

You complained that the origination of a hypothesis from an LSD trip was “absurd”. I understand that to mean that’s a problem with the “justification” for a hypothesis. It ignores my claim that a hypothesis needs, and in fact, can’t use such a notion of justification (this would produce circularity!), and just continues on, ignoring what I’ve said. That’s your prerogative, but it’s unresponsive, taking no heed of the point being made.

-TS

And here you replied to: “What do you think my point is?” Is your answer, then: “I think your point is that you’re just agreeing with me without realizing that you’re doing so”? If so, you think wrong. So you reeeeally need to slow down and not jump into these absurd construals of my arguments where you tell me that I’ve missed your point because you’ve missed mine.

My point is that your argument is an absurd non sequitur: Watson had an idea while tripping on LSD; therefore, there was no justification for this idea as a scientific hypothesis. (I don’t know if this is exactly what you have in mind, but I’m happy to hear a clarification if you had something different.)

My original point: So let’s look at your example: Do you think that the ‘hypothesis’ of a double-helical structure for DNA really “came from” an LSD trip?? I suggest you read about the history of this little discovery some more (which, I recall reading, was based partly on Watson and Crick stealing others’ research). That claim is too absurd!]

I thought you would be able to recognize the obvious absurdity of your claim with very little nudging. If you still don’t get it, please say so, feel free to offer a counter-argument, but please don’t just repeat the same apparently absurd argument.

 

[Touchstone]

And here you replied to: “What do you think my point is?” Is your answer, then: “I think your point is that you’re just agreeing with me without realizing that you’re doing so”? If so, you think wrong. So you reeeeally need to slow down and not jump into these absurd construals of my arguments where you tell me that I’ve missed your point because you’ve missed mine.

My point is that your argument is an absurd non sequitur: Watson had an idea while tripping on LSD; therefore, there was no justification for this idea as a scientific hypothesis. (I don’t know if this is exactly what you have in mind, but I’m happy to hear a clarification if you had something different.)

My original point: So let’s look at your example: Do you think that the ‘hypothesis’ of a double-helical structure for DNA really “came from” an LSD trip?? I suggest you read about the history of this little discovery some more (which, I recall reading, was based partly on Watson and Crick stealing others’ research). That claim is too absurd!]

I thought you would be able to recognize the obvious absurdity of your claim with very little nudging. If you still don’t get it, please say so, feel free to offer a counter-argument, but please don’t just repeat the same apparently absurd argument.

We can just apply the “envelope test”. As a researcher, you find one morning in your office an unmarked envelope slipped under your door, anonymously advancing the idea in the letter within that DNA is in fact structured as a double helix.

Now, you have no idea where the inspiration came from, and could not tell if this idea was the product of an LSD trip, some careful consideration of a list of possible geometric structures, or just a passing whim from a fellow researcher, or a janitor.

What do you need to find out about which of these, or other possible origin stories for the idea is true before you can apply it scientifically?

I’d appreciate an answer to that, thanks.

-TS

 

[Touchstone]

Question on the matrix argument.

Recent neurological studies have shown that there is a time lapse between sensation from direct brain stimulation (say on a fingertip) and nerve stimulation. It takes a person longer to feel sensation from direct brain stimulation than it does from nerve stimulation. Nerve stimulation is (im not a professional on the subject, but ive read this) instantaneous as far as ive heard, while it takes longer for direct brain stimulation (because of this many people have linked brain activity to quantum activity and compare it to such experiments where it seems info is traveling back in time, like the quantum eraser. fascinating subject, but not really relevant to the conversation).

This would mean that if there was a computer hooked up to our brains in an objectively “real” world and this was an illusion, then after the computer sent info to our brains, nerve stimulation would take as long as direct brain stimulation, and brain stimulation would take double the amount of time. This means that there would have to be a “storage area” in the brain where impulses from direct brain stimulation were stored before being processed. So far as we know, the brain does not work like this.

I dont see any holes in the argument, so i want a second opinion. Does this argument hold water?

No. The “brain” is part of the simulation – it’s just a computer daemon on a server somewhere that is “you” having all the sensations and virtual interactions that make up the real world. The timing can be controlled and manipulated with arbitrary precision in this way – time can be stopped, slowed, sped up, etc. and you wouldn’t know, you are just cycles on a CPU. When a CPU is halted, the execution context changed, and then changed back to the original task, the “program” has no knowledge this is happening. It’s all “real-time” from its point of view.

The problem is you are assuming that we would need a brain and physiology in the “real” world that matches what we think we have in the “imagined” world.

-TS

 

[Soulewolf]

The problem is you are assuming that we would need a brain and physiology in the “real” world that matches what we think we have in the “imagined” world.

-TS

Isnt that whats stated in the matrix?

 

[latin_rite]

You have just describe every single Philosopher. whether they be stoner kids or otherwise.

 

[Betterave]

We can just apply the “envelope test”. As a researcher, you find one morning in your office an unmarked envelope slipped under your door, anonymously advancing the idea in the letter within that DNA is in fact structured as a double helix.

Now, you have no idea where the inspiration came from, and could not tell if this idea was the product of an LSD trip, some careful consideration of a list of possible geometric structures, or just a passing whim from a fellow researcher, or a janitor.

What do you need to find out about which of these, or other possible origin stories for the idea is true before you can apply it scientifically?

I’d appreciate an answer to that, thanks.

-TS

First I complain about this absurd non sequitur: Watson had an idea while tripping on LSD; therefore, there was no justification for this idea as a scientific hypothesis.

So how do you respond? With a reassertion of the same absurd non sequitur, introducing a variation in the example used, but still no conceptual analysis to explain how you think your claim follows from your premise!

You claim:

IF Watson had an idea {EITHER while tripping on LSD OR while talking to the janitor OR when reading an anonymous note OR (I’ll add this one) while reading through notes stolen from a colleague}; THEN there was no justification for this idea qua scientific hypothesis. (Implied: in order to be justified as a scientific hypothesis, condition X would have to be fulfilled, and in all(?) of the aforementioned cases, condition X is not fulfilled.)

So what you take condition X to be???

The answer to your question above is obviously that such “origin stories” are entirely irrelevant to the question at hand. You obviously don’t need to know anything about such stories. Such stories have nothing to do with whether an idea has possible standing as a scientific hypothesis.

 

[Touchstone]

First I complain about this absurd non sequitur: Watson had an idea while tripping on LSD; therefore, there was no justification for this idea as a scientific hypothesis.

So how do you respond? With a reassertion of the same absurd non sequitur, introducing a variation in the example used, but still no conceptual analysis to explain how you think your claim follows from your premise!

You claim:

IF Watson had an idea {EITHER while tripping on LSD OR while talking to the janitor OR when reading an anonymous note OR (I’ll add this one) while reading through notes stolen from a colleague}; THEN there was no justification for this idea qua scientific hypothesis. (Implied: in order to be justified as a scientific hypothesis, condition X would have to be fulfilled, and in all(?) of the aforementioned cases, condition X is not fulfilled.)

So what you take condition X to be???

Dunno, have never done much looking into the matter. Friends who are biologists like this story, though, and point to articles like this for those who think it’s “absurd”:

Crick, aged 88, later told a fellow scientist that he often used small doses of LSD then an experimental drug used in psychotherapy to boost his powers of thought. He said it was LSD, not the Eagle’s warm beer, that helped him to unravel the structure of DNA, the discovery that won him the Nobel Prize.

Don’t believe everything you read on the Internet. But this is what I meant by “reportedly” in mentioning this. That is the report. The truth or falsehood of the story, though, is irrelevant – the point is that a hypothesis needs not, and and cannot use, any “justification”. A hypothesis could (even if it did not, in this case) come from a hallucination experience, and it rests on the same even playing field as every other hypothesis: it must perform empirically.

The answer to your question above is obviously that such “origin stories” are entirely irrelevant to the question at hand. You obviously don’t need to know anything about such stories. Such stories have nothing to do with whether an idea has possible standing as a scientific hypothesis.

OK, cool. The I think we have put to rest the idea of “hypothesis justification”. Scrounging up grant money and lab space is plenty difficult, as it is. Performance carries the day, and that’s all that matters for a hypothesis.

-TS

 

[Betterave]

Dunno, have never done much looking into the matter. Friends who are biologists like this story, though, and point to articles like this for those who think it’s “absurd”:

Whoa, whoa, whoa… who think WHAT is absurd?? That Crick took LSD? That he thought it made him a more creative thinker? There’s nothing absurd about that!

Don’t believe everything you read on the Internet. But this is what I meant by “reportedly” in mentioning this. That is the report. The truth or falsehood of the story, though, is irrelevant – the point is that a hypothesis needs not, and and cannot use, any “justification”. A hypothesis could (even if it did not, in this case) come from a hallucination experience, and it rests on the same even playing field as every other hypothesis: it must perform empirically.

No, “it must perform empirically” is far too simplistic. It doesn’t tell us anything. It’s simply not informative, it’s way too abstract. Science is not like that and could not be like that - it simply couldn’t function on the basis of appeals to such vague, simplistic abstractions. See below, for example…

OK, cool. The I think we have put to rest the idea of “hypothesis justification”. Scrounging up grant money and lab space is plenty difficult, as it is. Performance carries the day, and that’s all that matters for a hypothesis.

Put it to rest??!? LOL! What the heck are you talking about? Do you know what a non sequitur is? It’s not a good thing! When I point out that you have committed a non sequitur that’s not another way of saying “good argument!”

Of course an idea must be justified before it becomes a scientific hypothesis! Just because the fact that an idea occurred to someone while on LSD is irrelevant to such justifications, it does not follow (in Latin: non sequitur) that no justification is needed! How do you think lab space and funding get awarded?? Random lotteries??

 

[Betterave]

Hi TS,
I’m wondering what to make of your non-response here. Have you realized that you have been making absurd claims about science all this time, and that while you are able to reel off a bunch of scientific theories, you really don’t understand how science works as an institution? And maybe you’ve also realized you are very bad at logic?

 

[Touchstone]

Hi TS,
I’m wondering what to make of your non-response here. Have you realized that you have been making absurd claims about science all this time, and that while you are able to reel off a bunch of scientific theories, you really don’t understand how science works as an institution? And maybe you’ve also realized you are very bad at logic?

Yeah, that’s it. eyeroll

There just wasn’t much there to chew on, so I moved on. Stuff like this:

No, “it must perform empirically” is far too simplistic. It doesn’t tell us anything. It’s simply not informative, it’s way too abstract. Science is not like that and could not be like that - it simply couldn’t function on the basis of appeals to such vague, simplistic abstractions. See below, for example…

It’s not responsive at all. Perhaps it was a sarcastic caricature of something I said above, but… meh. It’s lazy talk, self-indulgent. Have it it. If you have something to contend with here, let it out: what epistemic justification does a hypothesis need, according to your claim? If it’s not practicable, then it won’t get anywhere scientifically due to practical limitations – the Large Hadron Collider is inching us closer to capabilities that test high energy dynamics that might help test M-Theory. But for now, the hypothesis, despite the applicable maths that produced it, is not testable, practically.

But that’s logistics, not epistemic justification. You apparently suppose that a hypothesis needs some sort of epistemic credential before it becomes a hypothesis. And I am not aware of such a criteria, and so am just asking what it is. Why you won’t just lay it out, I don’t know.

You say:

Of course an idea must be justified before it becomes a scientific hypothesis! Just because the fact that an idea occurred to someone while on LSD is irrelevant to such justifications, it does not follow (in Latin: non sequitur) that no justification is needed! How do you think lab space and funding get awarded?? Random lotteries??

I’ve not claimed that an LSD trip denies the possibility of “justification”, I deny that there is any a priori epistemic qualifications for a hypothesis to be a hypothesis. All sorts of practical challenges may obtain, but that’s a red herring in response to requests for information about a hypothesis’ epistemic warrant. Hypotheses need no epistemic warrant, so far as I can see, and the LSD story (as apocryphal as it may be) just points up all the diverse paths of ideas that lead to examination and application. If you can put the hypothesis to the test, it’s good to go. It may not win funding, or even interest, but it’s a testable idea.

Non-responsive isn’t such a problem, happens all the time. But this is just repetitive, committed non-responsiveness, and that’s just wasting my time. If you want to be serious here, tell me what the rules are, in your view, for the epistemic justification of a hypothesis as a hypothesis. Put your thoughts into action, and that is engaging.

-TS

 

[R_Daneel]

Yeah, that’s it. eyeroll

No matter how hard you try, you will never get a coherent post from Rave. It will always be a condesceding, yet empty remark, badmouthing your capabilities. I gave up on him a long time ago, and life is much better now. There are many other posters with whom one can have a substantial conversation.

 

[Betterave]

Yeah, that’s it. eyeroll

It might just be! I think those are RD’s problems as well.

There just wasn’t much there to chew on, so I moved on. Stuff like this:

Not much to chew on? Maybe you should forget about chewing and just see if you can answer some of my questions. Instead you ignore my questions and instead ask a bunch of questions of your own! Talk about “not responsive”!

No, “it must perform empirically” is far too simplistic. It doesn’t tell us anything. It’s simply not informative, it’s way too abstract. Science is not like that and could not be like that - it simply couldn’t function on the basis of appeals to such vague, simplistic abstractions. See below, for example…

It’s not responsive at all. Perhaps it was a sarcastic caricature of something I said above, but… meh. It’s lazy talk, self-indulgent. Have it it. If you have something to contend with here, let it out: what epistemic justification does a hypothesis need, according to your claim? If it’s not practicable, then it won’t get anywhere scientifically due to practical limitations – the Large Hadron Collider is inching us closer to capabilities that test high energy dynamics that might help test M-Theory. But for now, the hypothesis, despite the applicable maths that produced it, is not testable, practically.

But that’s logistics, not epistemic justification. You apparently suppose that a hypothesis needs some sort of epistemic credential before it becomes a hypothesis. And I am not aware of such a criteria, and so am just asking what it is. Why you won’t just lay it out, I don’t know.

It’s “not responsive”? What an absurd, NON-RESPONSIVE claim. There was also nothing sarcastic or caricatur-ish about it. Perhaps you mean to say that you don’t understand its relevance?

To answer your question here, think of your water pixies example. Someone could have an idea about water pixies while tripping on LSD. Do you think this idea thereby becomes a ‘scientific hypothesis’ about water pixies, which is just as justified, a priori, as any other? Someone could have a vision of a twisting ladder (double helix) while planting potatoes. Does this mean they have come up with a ‘scientific hypothesis’ about the structure of DNA?

You say:

Of course an idea must be justified before it becomes a scientific hypothesis! Just because the fact that an idea occurred to someone while on LSD is irrelevant to such justifications, it does not follow (in Latin: non sequitur) that no justification is needed! How do you think lab space and funding get awarded?? Random lotteries??

I’ve not claimed that an LSD trip denies the possibility of “justification”, I deny that there is any a priori epistemic qualifications for a hypothesis to be a hypothesis. All sorts of practical challenges may obtain, but that’s a red herring in response to requests for information about a hypothesis’ epistemic warrant. Hypotheses need no epistemic warrant, so far as I can see, and the LSD story (as apocryphal as it may be) just points up all the diverse paths of ideas that lead to examination and application. *[So TS: are you claiming that the LSD story is relevant to the DNA discovery? I have claimed that it is an irrelevant accidental feature of the discovery, in particular the original constitution of the hypothesis as a scientific hypothesis. You actually want to deny that??]

If you can put the hypothesis to the test, it’s good to go. It may not win funding, or even interest, but it’s a testable idea.

Non-responsive isn’t such a problem, happens all the time. But this is just repetitive, committed non-responsiveness, and that’s just wasting my time. If you want to be serious here, tell me what the rules are, in your view, for the epistemic justification of a hypothesis as a hypothesis. Put your thoughts into action, and that is engaging.

Listen, it’s not much fun pointing out incoherence to someone whose thinking is so incoherent that they can’t grasp that incoherence even when it is pointed out. Now pay attention:

When you offer as a retort to me: ‘I’ve not claimed that an LSD trip denies the possibility of “justification”’, this retort needs to be justified: it needs to actually be a contradiction of something that I have said. So how is this assertion justified? How does it correct something that I said?

And you call me non-responsive!

 

[Betterave]

No matter how hard you try, you will never get a coherent post from Rave. It will always be a condesceding, yet empty remark, badmouthing your capabilities. I gave up on him a long time ago, and life is much better now. There are many other posters with whom one can have a substantial conversation.

LOL! Like who, RD? With whom can you have a more substantial conversation? Your little claim here is obviously an easy way out for a stubborn, closed-minded, not-too-bright person who can’t bear to admit that his reasoning is hopelessly flawed.

 

[Betterave]

Hi TS,
I’m wondering what to make of your non-response here. Have you realized that you have been making absurd claims about science all this time, and that while you are able to reel off a bunch of scientific theories, you really don’t understand how science works as an institution? And maybe you’ve also realized you are very bad at logic?

TS and RD,
Please understand that it’s not that I *expect *you to suddenly get it, but it’s not impossible. It’s a little mysterious how it happens, but sometimes those lightbulb moments do occur.

 

[Touchstone]

No matter how hard you try, you will never get a coherent post from Rave.

I’ve seen lots of coherent posts from Betterave. Coherence does not seem to be a problem – who can respond to general incoherence? I think Betterave just likes the asymmetry of asking all the questions, and not having to support his claims. I think non-responsiveness is a problem, but that’s really just choices we make.

It will always be a condesceding, yet empty remark, badmouthing your capabilities. I gave up on him a long time ago, and life is much better now. There are many other posters with whom one can have a substantial conversation.

Yes, but I prefer to take each post (or maybe “thread”) on its own merits, and judge and respond to each by what is in the post. I’m regularly surprised by how often this pays good dividends rather than just writing people off. I know many who dismiss what I say just because it’s from me, or from an atheist, and I’d like to be heard on the merits for the post I’m writing and the ideas therein. Given that, it’s something I want to reciprocate on in responding to others.

-TS

 

[Betterave]

I’ve seen lots of coherent posts from Betterave. Coherence does not seem to be a problem – who can respond to general incoherence? I think Betterave just likes the asymmetry of asking all the questions, and not having to support his claims. I think non-responsiveness is a problem, but that’s really just choices we make.

That’s what frustrates me about you, TS: I read some of your posts in other threads and sometimes they’re very coherent. You just seem to hit a wall sometimes - I guess maybe it’s when an intelligent person actually starts to cross-examine your most precious but unexamined claims.

 

[Touchstone]

To answer your question here, think of your water pixies example. Someone could have an idea about water pixies while tripping on LSD. Do you think this idea thereby becomes a ‘scientific hypothesis’ about water pixies, which is just as justified, a priori, as any other? Someone could have a vision of a twisting ladder (double helix) while planting potatoes. Does this mean they have come up with a ‘scientific hypothesis’ about the structure of DNA?

Yes, that’s precisely what it means.A hypothesis is just a conjecture that we can test. A proposal. Maybe just a hunch. If you think it’s something more, that some other credentials are needed before it becomes a “hypothesis”, then what are these credentials. At length, and after many requests, you still refuse to address this. Planting potatoes or tripping on LSD or stealing notes from another scientist’s notebook do not affirm or deny anything for the hypothesis; its merit obtains in its performance under testing, in how accurately and elegantly it explains and predicts the world around us. The hypothesis may fail, and be worthless scientifically, but that is established by the empirical testing, not its provenance from halluciation or colleague’s notebook.

Listen, it’s not much fun pointing out incoherence to someone whose thinking is so incoherent that they can’t grasp that incoherence even when it is pointed out. Now pay attention:

When you offer as a retort to me: ‘I’ve not claimed that an LSD trip denies the possibility of “justification”’, this retort needs to be justified: it needs to actually be a contradiction of something that I have said. So how is this assertion justified? How does it correct something that I said?

Here’s what you said in this post:

In general hypotheses do not languish just because of lack of priorities and resources; that is obvious. Also, your claiming that they do does nothing to explain why some do not, i.e., does nothing to explain what justifies some hypotheses being taken up and investigated. Your claim that NOTHING justifies this and your implied claim that the ultimate and irreducible reason underlying this is some kind of perfectly unjustified “bet” is absolute nonsense. What on earth gave you the idea for that hypothesis? An LSD trip?

So I’ve explained over and over how what you call “absolute nonsense” is sensible, and the practice of science – hypotheses are not dismissed because they aren’t epistemically “justified”, and for necessary reasons – you have to have something to test! If you tested “proto-hypotheses” for their “justification” before they could be called hypotheses, there’d never be any new hypotheses, because an idea has to begin in an unproven, untested state before it can be tested.

So, my claim is not only is it sensible, it’s unavoidable for the enterprise. Now, back to you, if there is some regime of justification that I’m missing and that obtains in science, then if there’s a debate here, it’s reasonable to ask for a look at this justification regimen. I’ll ask again, this justification process, what is it, how does it work, and where can I see it in action? If it’s “absolute nonsense” to doubt that it’s there, this should not be a challenge to demonstrate at all. But so far, you’ve just avoided all the requests offered.

And you call me non-responsive!

-TS

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Here’s a test: the next time you’re stoned, write down all of your insights and also video tape them.

And when you are your associates are absolutely stone cold sober, read them, perhaps aloud. And play the video. And see if your insights make as much sense as when you were stoned.

Works equally well when drunk.

 

[Betterave]

Yes, that’s precisely what it means.A hypothesis is just a conjecture that we can test. A proposal. Maybe just a hunch. If you think it’s something more, that some other credentials are needed before it becomes a “hypothesis”, then what are these credentials. At length, and after many requests, you still refuse to address this. Planting potatoes or tripping on LSD or stealing notes from another scientist’s notebook do not affirm or deny anything for the hypothesis; its merit obtains in its performance under testing, in how accurately and elegantly it explains and predicts the world around us. The hypothesis may fail, and be worthless scientifically, but that is established by the empirical testing, not its provenance from halluciation or colleague’s notebook [the denial of this claim - the claim that an hypothesis IS established on the basis of its provenance from hallucination or a colleague’s notebook - would be absurd, so your continuing to insist on this point is pointless and uninteresting and suggests you still haven’t understood the argument here]

.

Please re-read my examples (carefully!) and tell me where you find (a) “a conjecture” (b) “that you can test” in either case.

Here’s what you said in this post:

In general hypotheses do not languish just because of lack of priorities and resources; that is obvious. Also, your claiming that they do does nothing to explain why some do not, i.e., does nothing to explain what justifies some hypotheses being taken up and investigated. Your claim that NOTHING justifies this and your implied claim that the ultimate and irreducible reason underlying this is some kind of perfectly unjustified “bet” is absolute nonsense. What on earth gave you the idea for that hypothesis? An LSD trip?

So I’ve explained - not quite! - I think you mean “asserted”] over and over how what you call “absolute nonsense” is sensible, and the practice of science – hypotheses are not dismissed because they aren’t epistemically “justified”, and for necessary reasons – you have to have something to test! If you tested “proto-hypotheses” for their “justification” before they could be called hypotheses, there’d never be any new hypotheses, because an idea has to begin in an unproven, untested state before it can be tested.

So, my claim is not only is it sensible, it’s unavoidable for the enterprise. Now, back to you, if there is some regime of justification that I’m missing and that obtains in science, then if there’s a debate here, it’s reasonable to ask for a look at this justification regimen. I’ll ask again, this justification process, what is it, how does it work, and where can I see it in action? If it’s “absolute nonsense” to doubt that it’s there, this should not be a challenge to demonstrate at all. But so far, you’ve just avoided all the requests offered.

I have not avoided all requests, TS. I’ve given you a number of examples to think about, on the basis of which it should be easy to notice that your view is wrong, that *that *(your view) is not how it works. The obvious regime of justification that you’re missing consists in the process of inducting new members into the scientific community, also known as education. The process of educating someone results in the establishment of what you might think of as ‘salience filters’ in his or her mind. This process, this instauration, is obviously essential to the scientific project. It’s also what guarantees that nonsense like your little ‘water pixies’ will never be justified as a scientific hypothesis.

(To illustrate this general notion, let me point out that you might be missing some ‘salience filters’ when it comes to understanding epistemology, the philosophy of science, and philosophy in general, probably because you haven’t been properly ‘inducted’ into these disciplines. That’s where the problems with ignoratio elenchi likely come from.)