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

[Betterave]

I hate to be a blooming optimist, TS, but did the lightbulb come on here? Can you see now that what you’ve insisted on calling “sensible”, just “the way science works”, is in fact absurd, and not at all how science works?

 

[Touchstone]

I hate to be a blooming optimist, TS, but did the lightbulb come on here? Can you see now that what you’ve insisted on calling “sensible”, just “the way science works”, is in fact absurd, and not at all how science works?

I remain unaware of any credential or justification a hypothesis needs beyond practicability. Epsitemically, the only justification a hypothesis can use or claim is the post facto justification of success empirically, as the result of being taken on for testing and analysis for its explanatory and predictive powers, so far as I can see.

Which makes this almost funny, to the extent I think you are being serious in saying:

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.

Again, I refer to the envelope slipped under the biologist’s door, unmarked, anonymous, containing the hypothesis: DNA has the structure of a double helix.

Such an idea has perfectly no such justification per your “obvious regime”. It hasn’t been inducted into any scientific community; it’s not a person, it’s a piece of paper containing a written down conjecture, of unknown provenance.

Given this envelope with that idea typed up on the paper inside, what is the “justificational status” of that hypothesis, according to you and your rules?

Is that a “justified” hypothesis, or is it not, in your view?

-TS

 

[Betterave]

TS, your being dense to this extent is not at all funny.

You write:
I remain unaware of any credential or justification a hypothesis needs beyond practicability. Epsitemically, the only justification a hypothesis can use or claim is the post facto justification of success empirically, as the result of being taken on for testing and analysis for its explanatory and predictive powers, so far as I can see.

You are talking here about confirmation of a hypothesis. But a hypothesis never gets tested if it is not somehow justified as an hypothesis in the first place. This is an extremely simple point and if you tried to actually honestly answer my questions to you, you would quite possibly get it right away.

You write:
Again, I refer to the envelope slipped under the biologist’s door, unmarked, anonymous, containing the hypothesis: DNA has the structure of a double helix.

Such an idea has perfectly no such justification per your “obvious regime”. It hasn’t been inducted into any scientific community; it’s not a person, it’s a piece of paper containing a written down conjecture, of unknown provenance.

This is a perfectly idiotic claim. Obviously if this envelope appears under the door of your three-year-old twins, who have not been inducted into any scientific community, the piece of paper would not become a scientific hypothesis - unless, perhaps, it subsequently fell into the hands of someone who *had *been inducted into a relevant scientific community.

So while the answer to your questions should be perfectly obvious by now, I will answer them anyway:

Given this envelope with that idea typed up on the paper inside, what is the “justificational status” of that hypothesis, according to you and your rules?
-As long as the idea remains simply “typed up on the paper inside,” it cannot possibly be “justified” as a scientific hypothesis. It has no “justificational” status.

Is that a “justified” hypothesis, or is it not, in your view?
-It is not. Whether it is justified or not can only be decided by someone who has been inducted into an appropriate scientific community. Again, until that happens, it has no “justificational” status.

 

[Touchstone]

TS, your being dense to this extent is not at all funny.

You write:I remain unaware of any credential or justification a hypothesis needs beyond practicability. Epsitemically, the only justification a hypothesis can use or claim is the post facto justification of success empirically, as the result of being taken on for testing and analysis for its explanatory and predictive powers, so far as I can see.
You are talking here about confirmation of a hypothesis. But a hypothesis never gets tested if it is not somehow justified as an hypothesis in the first place. This is an extremely simple point and if you tried to actually honestly answer my questions to you, you would quite possibly get it right away.

If it’s practicable, which I think is the term I’ve used throughout on this, than it can be tested. That’s what practicable means. If you can’t test a hypothesis, that is the end of the road for it, scientifically. But if it is practicable, it’s wide open. It doesn’t need anything else.

You write:Again, I refer to the envelope slipped under the biologist’s door, unmarked, anonymous, containing the hypothesis: DNA has the structure of a double helix.

Such an idea has perfectly no such justification per your “obvious regime”. It hasn’t been inducted into any scientific community; it’s not a person, it’s a piece of paper containing a written down conjecture, of unknown provenance.
This is a perfectly idiotic claim. Obviously if this envelope appears under the door of your three-year-old twins, who have not been inducted into any scientific community, the piece of paper would not become a scientific hypothesis - unless, perhaps, it subsequently fell into the hands of someone who *had *been inducted into a relevant scientific community.

But the hypothesis remains the same, no matter whose hands the letter falls into. You’ve just proven my point by allowing that it would be justified in the hands of some “inductee”. For the hypothesis didn’t change – the writing on the letter is what it is. If the hypothesis itself needed some justification, putting it in the hands of a scientist or anyone else wouldn’t help it at all, it would need to be restructured, or changed somehow.

So while the answer to your questions should be perfectly obvious by now, I will answer them anyway:

Given this envelope with that idea typed up on the paper inside, what is the “justificational status” of that hypothesis, according to you and your rules?
-As long as the idea remains simply “typed up on the paper inside,” it cannot possibly be “justified” as a scientific hypothesis. It has no “justificational” status.

OK, you’re now confirming what I’ve said all along. The notion of “justifcational status” for a practicable hypothesis is a nothing. There is no such process or requirement in place.

Is that a “justified” hypothesis, or is it not, in your view?
-It is not. Whether it is justified or not can only be decided by someone who has been inducted into an appropriate scientific community. Again, until that happens, it has no “justificational” status.

Hold on. Just above, you said it had no justifcational status. Now, here, it is “unjustified”, which means it does have a justificational status! Which is it, because these two claims contradict each other.

How would one verify the “inductedness” of a person into the proper community, thereby establishing the “priesthood of hypothesis” you suppose exists here. Are tribal hunters who come up with a new idea for a better tool for hunting prey “inducted”? If they test their hypothesis by trials in the wild, and compare the results of hunting with the new device with the traditional (old) device, are their empirical results wrong, or “unjustified”? Perhaps they are mystically inducted into this priesthood, somehow, even if they’ve never seen a lab coat from their village in Papua New Guinea?

-TS

 

[Betterave]

If it’s practicable, which I think is the term I’ve used throughout on this, than it can be tested. That’s what practicable means. If you can’t test a hypothesis, that is the end of the road for it, scientifically.

True.

But if it is practicable, it’s wide open. It doesn’t need anything else.

False.

But the hypothesis remains the same, no matter whose hands the letter falls into. You’ve just proven my point by allowing that it would be justified in the hands of some “inductee”. For the hypothesis didn’t change – the writing on the letter is what it is. If the hypothesis itself needed some justification, putting it in the hands of a scientist or anyone else wouldn’t help it at all, it would need to be restructured, or changed somehow.

*No it doesn’t *remain the same. An hypothesis is a kind of concept. A concept can be compared to a tool. The toolness of a tool depends on it being used as such. A rock might be a natural pounding tool, but until someone uses it as such it’s just a rock. The conceptness of a concept depends on it being conceived. A bunch of marks on a piece of paper cannot possibly be in themselves constitutive of a concept, even if those marks look like the following bracketed marks on your computer screen:

[DNA-structure = double helix.]

OK, you’re now confirming what I’ve said all along. The notion of “justifcational status” for a practicable hypothesis is a nothing. There is no such process or requirement in place.

Ok, now you’re jumping to stupid conclusions again based on nothing, and saying things that don’t make any sense. What are you talking about here?

Hold on. Just above, you said it had no justifcational status. Now, here, it is “unjustified”, which means it does have a justificational status! Which is it, because these two claims contradict each other.

Hold on yourself, TS. I did not say it has a justificational status of “unjustified” - what are you talking about??

How would one verify the “inductedness” of a person into the proper community, thereby establishing the “priesthood of hypothesis” you suppose exists here.

There are a number of ways, but I find it incredible that you are not familiar with them. You went to school, right? That’s what was happening there. Even if you work at McDonald’s you have a period of training, of being inducted into that little knowledge community. I’m sorry, but I’m completely baffled that you can not get this point.

Are tribal hunters who come up with a new idea for a better tool for hunting prey “inducted”? If they test their hypothesis by trials in the wild, and compare the results of hunting with the new device with the traditional (old) device, are their empirical results wrong, or “unjustified”? Perhaps they are mystically inducted into this priesthood, somehow, even if they’ve never seen a lab coat from their village in Papua New Guinea?

-TS

Obviously they are “inducted”, TS. What did you think? That they weren’t?

Your questions here are outrageously off-base. A priori justified, tested, and confirmed hypotheses are “wrong” or “unjustified”? Lab coats? Come on; be serious!

 

[Touchstone]

Obviously they are “inducted”, TS. What did you think? That they weren’t?

Who inducted them, and by what power or authority were they inducted? Does the Scientific Magisterium have a consulate in Papua New Guinea? It seems this “induction” process is the crucial point. Where can I read more about this induction process, the kind these tribal hunters went there to make their notions of a better hunting tool “justified” as a hypothesis?

You suppose it’s obvious they were inducted, but you done nothing but evade and wave hands on the existence of this whole “induction” thing, this certification as a member of some qualified community that administers the authority for epistemic justification for a hypothesis. Who is this organization, what is this community? What qualifies one to sanctify a hypothesis.

Einstein, IIRC, as a child was fascinated by a compass he was given and came up with all sorts of ideas and tests he would try with it. As he grew older, he build models and inventive mechanical devices, parts and examples being available from his father who ran an electric equipment manufacturing concern. By 15, he had become immersed in math, and at that tender age published "The Investigation of the State of Aether in Magnetic Fields".

Was Einstein “inducted” at that point, as a 15 year old? If so, at what point did he become an “inductee”?

Your questions here are outrageously off-base. A priori justified, tested, and confirmed hypotheses are “wrong” or “unjustified”? Lab coats? Come on; be serious!

I’m perfectly serious. If you suppose that the tribal hunters in New Guinea are part of some induction ceremony or organizational enrollment, a “priesthood” that somehow confers epistemic justification on an idea, beyond practicability (it has to be testable!), I’d like to know more about it.

What does the 14 year old hunter in the tribe who supposes a shale arrowhead will be stronger than the wooden ones traditional used need to do be “inducted” so his hypothesis becomes “justifed”, before he fits some arrows with each, and tries them out on logs, melons, carcasses of already-killed animals, and live prey? From you’ve said, it does sound like you imagine some kind of priesthood here (hence the lab coat comment – the scientist’s vestments).

-TS

 

[Betterave]

I think your questions would largely answer themselves, if only you would actually look at the examples I have already given. Instead, however, you skip right to the end of my post and start objecting:

Who inducted them, and by what power or authority were they inducted?

Their elders, by the natural power and authority of elders.

Does the Scientific Magisterium have a consulate in Papua New Guinea?

This is presumably intended sarcastically, but it should be intended figuratively, and the answer is obviously yes.

It seems this “induction” process is the crucial point. Where can I read more about this induction process, the kind these tribal hunters went there to make their notions of a better hunting tool “justified” as a hypothesis?

I’m not sure. Some book on the development of primitive technologies, presumably. The point is so obvious, though, that it might be hard to find where it is explicitly discussed.

You suppose it’s obvious they were inducted, but you done nothing but evade and wave hands on the existence of this whole “induction” thing, this certification as a member of some qualified community that administers the authority for epistemic justification for a hypothesis. Who is this organization, what is this community? What qualifies one to sanctify a hypothesis.

There isn’t some central organization for “Induction into Knowledge Communities”, as you so absurdly imply. If you have a criticism, please make it specific. My points have been specific and responsive, and your dismissing them as hand-waving is ridiculous.

Einstein, IIRC, as a child was fascinated by a compass he was given and came up with all sorts of ideas and tests he would try with it. As he grew older, he build models and inventive mechanical devices, parts and examples being available from his father who ran an electric equipment manufacturing concern. By 15, he had become immersed in math, and at that tender age published "The Investigation of the State of Aether in Magnetic Fields".

Was Einstein “inducted” at that point, as a 15 year old? If so, at what point did he become an “inductee”?

Obviously he was. He became an inductee when he became able to hold an intelligent discourse in a particular technical domain, when he was able to take things and ideas from his father, understand them as such, and to play with them.

I’m perfectly serious. If you suppose that the tribal hunters in New Guinea are part of some induction ceremony or organizational enrollment, a “priesthood” that somehow confers epistemic justification on an idea, beyond practicability (it has to be testable!), I’d like to know more about it.

Go ahead and do some research then! I don’t see what’s so fascinating about something so obvious.

What does the 14 year old hunter in the tribe who supposes a shale arrowhead will be stronger than the wooden ones traditional used need to do be “inducted” so his hypothesis becomes “justifed”, before he fits some arrows with each, and tries them out on logs, melons, carcasses of already-killed animals, and live prey? From you’ve said, it does sound like you imagine some kind of priesthood here (hence the lab coat comment – the scientist’s vestments).

The 14-y-o hunter needs to understand the institution of hunting and its existing technological accoutrements in order to be “inducted” so as to be able to form a relevant hypothesis. I don’t care if you want to absurdly use the term ‘priesthood’ - it’s irrelevant what you call it, as long as you eventually understand the obvious point (your absurd importation of terms like ‘priesthood’, ‘magisterium’, lab coats as ‘vestments’, etc. probably isn’t helping you with this - it’s just betraying your parochial prejudices (which is obviously not something you’re shy about doing)).

 

[Touchstone]

I think your questions would largely answer themselves, if only you would actually look at the examples I have already given. Instead, however, you skip right to the end of my post and start objecting:

Their elders, by the natural power and authority of elders.

This is presumably intended sarcastically, but it should be intended figuratively, and the answer is obviously yes.

I’m not sure. Some book on the development of primitive technologies, presumably. The point is so obvious, though, that it might be hard to find where it is explicitly discussed.

There isn’t some central organization for “Induction into Knowledge Communities”, as you so absurdly imply. If you have a criticism, please make it specific. My points have been specific and responsive, and your dismissing them as hand-waving is ridiculous.

Obviously he was. He became an inductee when he became able to hold an intelligent discourse in a particular technical domain, when he was able to take things and ideas from his father, understand them as such, and to play with them.

Go ahead and do some research then! I don’t see what’s so fascinating about something so obvious.

The 14-y-o hunter needs to understand the institution of hunting and its existing technological accoutrements in order to be “inducted” so as to be able to form a relevant hypothesis. I don’t care if you want to absurdly use the term ‘priesthood’ - it’s irrelevant what you call it, as long as you eventually understand the obvious point (your absurd importation of terms like ‘priesthood’, ‘magisterium’, lab coats as ‘vestments’, etc. probably isn’t helping you with this - it’s just betraying your parochial prejudices (which is obviously not something you’re shy about doing)).

OK thank you for the responses to the questions. I appreciate it, and suppose that readers can make what they will now of the two positions on epistemic justification of a hypothesis.

-TS

 

[Betterave]

OK thank you for the responses to the questions. I appreciate it, and suppose that readers can make what they will now of the two positions on epistemic justification of a hypothesis.

-TS

I suppose the same thing (how could I not?), but in your case I was hoping for an actual response. Do you concede that your position was absurd? Or do you still think you actually have a defensible reponse to what I have pointed out here?

(It sounds like perhaps you’re writing to impress your readers here? Maybe you should just focus on understanding the various positions (yours and your opponents’) and on discussing them in an intelligent, open-minded way.)

 

[Touchstone]

I suppose the same thing (how could I not?), but in your case I was hoping for an actual response. Do you concede that your position was absurd? Or do you still think you actually have a defensible reponse to what I have pointed out here?

I think your response was much more convincing as to the weakness of your claims than anything I could post from my vantage point. The handwaving about this “induction” condemns itself. I will just get out of the way. It was so bad, I just don’t see any need to respond further. But if you wish to ask me about particulars, be my guest, and I will respond.

(It sounds like perhaps you’re writing to impress your readers here? Maybe you should just focus on understanding the various positions (yours and your opponents’) and on discussing them in an intelligent, open-minded way.)

My point is made by your response above, convincingly, I think. People will judge for themselves, but there’s just no need to for me to press that further now. On to other things…

-TS

 

[Betterave]

I think your response was much more convincing as to the weakness of your claims than anything I could post from my vantage point. The handwaving about this “induction” condemns itself. I will just get out of the way. It was so bad, I just don’t see any need to respond further. But if you wish to ask me about particulars, be my guest, and I will respond.

My point is made by your response above, convincingly, I think. People will judge for themselves, but there’s just no need to for me to press that further now. On to other things…

-TS

Well it seems that perhaps you’ve gotten too far outside your dogmatic comfort zone and my pointing out the factual absurdity of your position has rendered you unable to even attempt to respond to my criticism of your view. I would like to ask you about some particulars, however: What point is “convincingly” made by my response above (people other than TS: do you know what he’s referring to)? Which part was “bad” and what was “bad” about it?

Would anybody else like to attempt to make an actual criticism of my view here? It seems clear enough to me that it is obviously correct, but I’m happy to field objections.

 

[Betterave]

Here’s a possible scenario, TS: give an ancient Greek monkey a type writer and he happens to type out:

“dna=dublehlix”

Then he slides it under Democritus’ door. Does Democritus even possibly have an *hypothesis *in his hands about the structure of DNA? (NO)

Now give an English monkey a type writer in 1953 and he happens to type out:

“dna=dublehlix”

Then he slides it under Watson’s door, who is busy trying to determine the structure of DNA. Will Watson possibly have an hypothesis in his hands about the structure of DNA? (YES)

So what is the relevant difference between the two cases?
(We can play this again with the example of arrowhead-designs if need be.)

 

[Touchstone]

Here’s a possible scenario, TS: give an ancient Greek monkey a type writer and he happens to type out:

“dna=dublehlix”

Then he slides it under Democritus’ door. Does Democritus even possibly have an *hypothesis *in his hands about the structure of DNA? (NO)

Now give an English monkey a type writer in 1953 and he happens to type out:

“dna=dublehlix”

Then he slides it under Watson’s door, who is busy trying to determine the structure of DNA. Will Watson possibly have an hypothesis in his hands about the structure of DNA? (YES)

So what is the relevant difference between the two cases?
(We can play this again with the example of arrowhead-designs if need be.)

Do I have to find and link to all the times I said that a hypothesis needs to be PRACTICABLE to stand as a hypothesis??? So long as the words map to concepts that admit of testing, scientifically, you are good to go. If “DNA has a helical structure” is nonsense, symbols meaning perfectly nothing for a language that won’t even evolve for 2,000 years, there’s perfectly no practicability to be had. It might as well be a child’s scribbles.

But so long as the terms and concepts are bound to something we can test – and this has nothing to do with any particular person or “inductee” – that’s all that’s needed. Practicability. Noone needs to be “inducted” into any “community” – that’s nonsense. It just needs to be testable. “DNA is a helical structure” is a perfectly practicable hypothesis even if its typed up by monkeys and given to my three year old twins, who can’t yet read. SOMEONE, somewhere can read and implement the idea in a testable way, and that’s all it takes – practicability.

If you want to now claim that you were merely pointing that we need language to communicate, and “hypotheses” that are somehow expressed (yet not expressed) in a form no one can understand and therefore test, go ahead and keeping digging that hole. I will freely grant that nonsense symbols do not make for a testable idea, and I’ve said this from the start.

-TS

 

[Betterave]

Do I have to find and link to all the times I said that a hypothesis needs to be PRACTICABLE to stand as a hypothesis???

Please don’t! I don’t need any more red herrings from you.

So long as the words map to concepts that admit of testing, scientifically, you are good to go. If “DNA has a helical structure” is nonsense, symbols meaning perfectly nothing for a language that won’t even evolve for 2,000 years, there’s perfectly no practicability to be had. It might as well be a child’s scribbles.

Right. So what distinguishes the two cases? Is the distinction captured by the claim that there is a PRACTICABLE hypothesis in one case, but not in the other? Is that a primitive distinction, or is this distinction derived from a logically prior distinction? (Please seriously ask yourself this question.)

But so long as the terms and concepts are bound to something we can test – and this has nothing to do with any particular person or “inductee” – that’s all that’s needed.

‘…this has nothing to do with any particular person or “inductee”’ -

Are you sure about that, TS??

Practicability. Noone needs to be “inducted” into any “community” – that’s nonsense. It just needs to be testable. “DNA is a helical structure” is a perfectly practicable hypothesis even if its typed up by monkeys and given to my three year old twins, who can’t yet read. SOMEONE, somewhere can read and implement the idea in a testable way, and that’s all it takes – practicability.

First, practicability is only one issue (one which is not primitive and from which you need to try to de-fixate). Second, even just considering ‘practicability,’ this is necessarily a function of existing knowledge communities - isn’t it?

If you want to now claim that you were merely pointing that we need language to communicate, and “hypotheses” that are somehow expressed (yet not expressed) in a form no one can understand and therefore test, go ahead and keeping digging that hole. I will freely grant that nonsense symbols do not make for a testable idea, and I’ve said this from the start.

You’re totally missing the point: What distinguishes “nonsense symbols” from “non-nonsense symbols”? You treat these as primitive notions, natural categories, givens; but they clearly are not. What does the status of some token of possible symbols depend upon?

P.S. Still waiting for an answer to post 309.

 

[Touchstone]

Well it seems that perhaps you’ve gotten too far outside your dogmatic comfort zone and my pointing out the factual absurdity of your position has rendered you unable to even attempt to respond to my criticism of your view. I would like to ask you about some particulars, however: What point is “convincingly” made by my response above (people other than TS: do you know what he’s referring to)? Which part was “bad” and what was “bad” about it?

It’s clear you have no more idea what “induction” or “knowledge community” you are talking about, any more than I do, here. It’s conspicuous in your post above that there is no such process of enrollment or induction, or any such community. If these exist, there was your chance to name them, to demonstrate how that works, just a little bit. And you provided nothing, convincingly demonstrating why it was so freakin’ hard to get you to provide a direct answer in the first place. You had no answer to give, and when pressed, that’s the best you could come up with.

It’s a small point, in the scheme of things, but here, you’ve shown you are talking through your hat, and willing to deny it and defend that as something else to extraordinary lengths.

-TS

 

[Touchstone]

Right. So what distinguishes the two cases? Is the distinction captured by the claim that there is a PRACTICABLE hypothesis in one case, but not in the other? Is that a primitive distinction, or is this distinction derived from a logically prior distinction? (Please seriously ask yourself this question.)

‘…this has nothing to do with any particular person or “inductee”’ -

Are you sure about that, TS??

Uh, yeah, here’s Webster:

1
: to put in formal possession (as of a benefice or office) : install <was induct**ed as president of the college>

2
a : to admit as a member <induct**ed into a scholastic society> b : introduce, initiate c : to enroll for military training or service (as under a selective service act)

3
: lead, conduct

Nothing like that in what you are saying. No “formal possession”, or admittance as a member, no initiation, no enrollment. It’s just handwaving toward some imaginary “induction” to an imaginary “community”.

First, practicability is only one issue (one which is not primitive and from which you need to try to de-fixate). Second, even just considering ‘practicability,’ this is necessarily a function of existing knowledge communities - isn’t it?

I’m unfamiliar with the term “knowledge community”. Seems like this isn’t what you are talking about. What, then? I looked at several of the first few pages of hits on Google for “knowledge community” and didn’t come up with anything that fits what you are talking about, let alone some form of this that has some induction process or enrollment ceremony for science or its methods (let alone something that would apply to a teenage tribesman in Papua New Guinea!).

Practicability just means “doable”, able to be put in practice. It’s not a function of community, it’s just the state of being capable of put to a practical test. A kid stranded on a desert island could come up with a hypothesis, perhaps as to why certain fish came into the shallows at certain times of the year (to spawn, perhaps), and then test that via experiment and observation. There’s no “knowledge community”, there’s no “induction”, it’s just a single young man putting testable ideas into practice.

Science benefits greatly from community, at least because it provides the basis for cross-checking and objectivity, but a hypothesis needs no “induction” into any “community” to be “justiifed”. It just needs to be doable, testable, that’s all.

You’re totally missing the point: What distinguishes “nonsense symbols” from “non-nonsense symbols”? You treat these as primitive notions, natural categories, givens; but they clearly are not. What does the status of some token of possible symbols depend upon?

Language, of course. If you can’t understand the symbols, you can’t make sense of them, by definition. If you understand the symbols, and can match concepts to them, concepts which can be put in practice for empirical testing, you’re good. If it’s a language you don’t understand, you’re hosed.

P.S. Still waiting for an answer to post 309.

Done.

-TS

 

[Betterave]

It’s clear you have no more idea what “induction” or “knowledge community” you are talking about, any more than I do, here.

The fact that you clearly don’t understand something doesn’t mean that I don’t. If there’s something you don’t understand, please ask about it, don’t make silly invalid inferences like this one.

It’s conspicuous in your post above that there is no such process of enrollment or induction, or any such community. If these exist, there was your chance to name them, to demonstrate how that works, just a little bit. And you provided nothing, convincingly demonstrating why it was so freakin’ hard to get you to provide a direct answer in the first place. You had no answer to give, and when pressed, that’s the best you could come up with.

It’s a small point, in the scheme of things, but here, you’ve shown you are talking through your hat, and willing to deny it and defend that as something else to extraordinary lengths.

No, TS, I certainly did not provide nothing. I provided what I esteemed to be enough for a minimally intelligent person who was actually trying to understand, instead of trying to not understand, to be able to get the point - or at least to be able to ask an intelligent question seeking clarification, if he didn’t get the point. If I didn’t provide enough for you, all you need to do is say something like: “But how exactly does this concept actually apply to this situation?” (filling in specifics of whatever it is that you don’t understand, naturally).

 

[Betterave]

First off, I notice that you skipped over the meat of the issue and sought diversion in the dictionary. Here’s the question you skipped answering and really shouldn’t have:

So what distinguishes the two cases? Is the distinction captured by the claim that there is a PRACTICABLE hypothesis in one case, but not in the other? Is that a primitive distinction, or is this distinction derived from a logically prior distinction? (Please seriously ask yourself this question.)

Uh, yeah, here’s Webster:

Nothing like that in what you are saying. No “formal possession”, or admittance as a member, no initiation, no enrollment. It’s just handwaving toward some imaginary “induction” to an imaginary “community”.

There is plenty “like that” in what I have said. Maybe you ought to read it again and ask some specific questions about what I wrote, if you really are unable to understand (as opposed to not wanting to understand).

I’m unfamiliar with the term “knowledge community”. Seems like this isn’t what you are talking about. What, then? I looked at several of the first few pages of hits on Google for “knowledge community” and didn’t come up with anything that fits what you are talking about, let alone some form of this that has some induction process or enrollment ceremony for science or its methods (let alone something that would apply to a teenage tribesman in Papua New Guinea!).

Well it’s a tricky term. It breaks down into to separate terms: “knowl” and “edge community.” Does that help?

But seriously, the meaning of a term is determined by how it is used. You have to actually look at and try to understand how I’m using the term if you want to know what it means. A knowledge community is a group of people that share some ‘form of life’ (e.g., hunting, biological research, working at McDonald’s, finite element research, holding a high school diploma) to which there pertains a particular set of acquired competencies (knowledge).

Practicability just means “doable”, able to be put in practice. It’s not a function of community, it’s just the state of being capable of put to a practical test. A kid stranded on a desert island could come up with a hypothesis, perhaps as to why certain fish came into the shallows at certain times of the year (to spawn, perhaps), and then test that via experiment and observation. There’s no “knowledge community”, there’s no “induction”, it’s just a single young man putting testable ideas into practice.

That’s obviously true about the kid, and obviously irrelevant. The young man has *obviously *already been inducted into a knowledge community if he has the wherewithal to come up with such an hypothesis.

Practicability certainly is a function of community. Your denial of this is so completely absurd I hardly know what to say. Man can barely even subsist apart from community, never mind build knowledge, along with its rather conspicuous by-products, such as (your favorite) airplanes, grocery stores, the stock market, the pyramids, the nation state, etc.

Science benefits greatly from community, at least because it provides the basis for cross-checking and objectivity, but a hypothesis needs no “induction” into any “community” to be “justiifed”. It just needs to be doable, testable, that’s all.

But that is an absurd and false claim, as my examples have already shown!

You’re totally missing the point: What distinguishes “nonsense symbols” from “non-nonsense symbols”? You treat these as primitive notions, natural categories, givens; but they clearly are not. What does the status of some token of possible symbols depend upon?

Language, of course. If you can’t understand the symbols, you can’t make sense of them, by definition. If you understand the symbols, and can match concepts to them, concepts which can be put in practice for empirical testing, you’re good. If it’s a language you don’t understand, you’re hosed.

So you want to say that the status of some token of possible symbols (i.e., possible language) depends upon language, of course? LOL! That’s quite an explanation. In other words, what determines whether you can understand a set of symbols, i.e., a linguistic utterance or inscription? Language! Language determines whether you can understand language or not! Of course, why didn’t I think of that! Great explanation.

 

[Betterave]

First off, I notice that you skipped over the meat of the issue and sought diversion in the dictionary. Here’s the question you skipped answering and really shouldn’t have:

So what distinguishes the two cases? Is the distinction captured by the claim that there is a PRACTICABLE hypothesis in one case, but not in the other? Is that a primitive distinction, or is this distinction derived from a logically prior distinction? (Please seriously ask yourself this question.)

Uh, yeah, here’s Webster:

Nothing like that in what you are saying. No “formal possession”, or admittance as a member, no initiation, no enrollment. It’s just handwaving toward some imaginary “induction” to an imaginary “community”.

There is plenty “like that” in what I have said. Maybe you ought to read it again and ask some specific questions about what I wrote, if you really are *unable *to understand (as opposed to simply *not wanting *to understand).

I’m unfamiliar with the term “knowledge community”. Seems like this isn’t what you are talking about. What, then? I looked at several of the first few pages of hits on Google for “knowledge community” and didn’t come up with anything that fits what you are talking about, let alone some form of this that has some induction process or enrollment ceremony for science or its methods (let alone something that would apply to a teenage tribesman in Papua New Guinea!).

Well it’s a tricky term. It breaks down into to separate terms: “knowl” and “edge community.” Does that help?

But seriously, the meaning of a term is determined by how it is used. You have to actually look at and try to understand how I’m using the term if you want to know what it means. A knowledge community is a group of people that share some ‘form of life’ (e.g., hunting, biological research, working at McDonald’s, finite element research, holding a high school diploma) to which there pertains a particular set of acquired competencies (knowledge).

Practicability just means “doable”, able to be put in practice. It’s not a function of community, it’s just the state of being capable of put to a practical test. A kid stranded on a desert island could come up with a hypothesis, perhaps as to why certain fish came into the shallows at certain times of the year (to spawn, perhaps), and then test that via experiment and observation. There’s no “knowledge community”, there’s no “induction”, it’s just a single young man putting testable ideas into practice.

That’s obviously true about the kid, and obviously irrelevant. The young man has *obviously *already been inducted into a knowledge community if he has the wherewithal to come up with such an hypothesis.

Practicability certainly is a function of community. Your denial of this is so completely absurd I hardly know what to say. Man can barely even subsist apart from community, never mind build knowledge, along with its rather conspicuous by-products, such as (your favorite) airplanes, grocery stores, the stock market, the pyramids, the nation state, etc.

Science benefits greatly from community, at least because it provides the basis for cross-checking and objectivity, but a hypothesis needs no “induction” into any “community” to be “justiifed”. It just needs to be doable, testable, that’s all.

But that is an absurd and false claim, as my examples have already shown!

You’re totally missing the point: What distinguishes “nonsense symbols” from “non-nonsense symbols”? You treat these as primitive notions, natural categories, givens; but they clearly are not. What does the status of some token of possible symbols depend upon?

Language, of course. If you can’t understand the symbols, you can’t make sense of them, by definition. If you understand the symbols, and can match concepts to them, concepts which can be put in practice for empirical testing, you’re good. If it’s a language you don’t understand, you’re hosed.

So you want to say that the status of some token of possible symbols (i.e., possible language) depends upon language, of course? LOL! That’s quite an explanation. In other words, what determines whether you can understand a set of symbols, i.e., a linguistic utterance or inscription? Language! Language determines whether you can understand language or not! Of course, why didn’t I think of that! Great explanation.

 

[Betterave]

First off, I notice that you skipped over the meat of the issue and sought diversion in the dictionary. Here’s the question you skipped answering and really shouldn’t have:
So what distinguishes the two cases? Is the distinction captured by the claim that there is a PRACTICABLE hypothesis in one case, but not in the other? Is that a primitive distinction, or is this distinction derived from a logically prior distinction? (Please seriously ask yourself this question.)

Uh, yeah, here’s Webster:
Nothing like that in what you are saying. No “formal possession”, or admittance as a member, no initiation, no enrollment. It’s just handwaving toward some imaginary “induction” to an imaginary “community”.

There is plenty “like that” in what I have said. Maybe you ought to read it again and ask some specific questions about what I wrote, if you really are unable to understand (as opposed to not wanting to understand).

I’m unfamiliar with the term “knowledge community”. Seems like this isn’t what you are talking about. What, then? I looked at several of the first few pages of hits on Google for “knowledge community” and didn’t come up with anything that fits what you are talking about, let alone some form of this that has some induction process or enrollment ceremony for science or its methods (let alone something that would apply to a teenage tribesman in Papua New Guinea!).

Well it’s a tricky term. It breaks down into to separate terms: “knowl” and “edge community.” Does that help?
But seriously, the meaning of a term is determined by how it is used. You have to actually look at and try to understand how I’m using the term if you want to know what it means. A knowledge community is a group of people that share some ‘form of life’ (e.g., hunting, biological research, working at McDonald’s, finite element research, holding a high school diploma) to which there pertains a particular set of acquired competencies (knowledge).

Practicability just means “doable”, able to be put in practice. It’s not a function of community, it’s just the state of being capable of put to a practical test. A kid stranded on a desert island could come up with a hypothesis, perhaps as to why certain fish came into the shallows at certain times of the year (to spawn, perhaps), and then test that via experiment and observation. There’s no “knowledge community”, there’s no “induction”, it’s just a single young man putting testable ideas into practice.

That’s obviously true about the kid, and obviously irrelevant. The young man has *obviously *already been inducted into a knowledge community if he has the wherewithal to come up with such an hypothesis.
Practicability certainly is a function of community. Your denial of this is so completely absurd I hardly know what to say. Man can barely even subsist apart from community, never mind build knowledge, along with its rather conspicuous by-products, such as (your favorite) airplanes, grocery stores, the stock market, the pyramids, the nation state, etc.

Science benefits greatly from community, at least because it provides the basis for cross-checking and objectivity, but a hypothesis needs no “induction” into any “community” to be “justiifed”. It just needs to be doable, testable, that’s all.

But that is an absurd and false claim, as my examples have already shown!

You’re totally missing the point: What distinguishes “nonsense symbols” from “non-nonsense symbols”? You treat these as primitive notions, natural categories, givens; but they clearly are not. What does the status of some token of possible symbols depend upon?

Language, of course. If you can’t understand the symbols, you can’t make sense of them, by definition. If you understand the symbols, and can match concepts to them, concepts which can be put in practice for empirical testing, you’re good. If it’s a language you don’t understand, you’re hosed.

So you want to say that the status of some token of possible symbols (i.e., possible language) depends upon language, of course? LOL! That’s quite an explanation. In other words, what determines whether you can understand a set of symbols, i.e., a linguistic utterance or inscription? Language! Language determines whether you can understand language or not! Of course, why didn’t I think of that! Great explanation.