The most baffling mystery of all

[Syntax]

Well, well. I wonder if you would care to apply your reasoning to other branches of science.

All science depends on induction.

You might dispute the laws of logic, because the laws of logic cannot be proven logically.Or you might dispute mathematics, because its axioms cannot be proven mathematically.

No. Inductive of reasoning is much more problematic than the logical laws of thought such as logical law of non-contradiction. I would have less of a rational problem if the sun suddenly burnt out tomorrow violating the laws of physics than if I suddenly found out that I can both exist and not-exist at the same time and in the same sense, or if a mathematician suddenly proposed that the pythagorean theorem was false. They are totally disanalogous. Believe me, I have a much larger “faith” in math and logic than I do in the alleged laws of nature.

Here is a surprise for you: no branch of science can prove or verify its very foundation. They are all accepted as true, because they are either obvious, or because they work.

Please explain which foundations of science are just accepted as “true.” I’m positive this isn’t correct at all since I am sure scientists would be willing to discard the law of thermodynamics or entropy if they really had to. All scientific theories can be overturned in science. Perhaps you are referring to “quasi-scientific” metaphysical/philosophical princples such as “every effect has a cause” or “there are both continuous and discrete quantities in nature”? I will perhaps accept those as foundational to science.

The axioms of mathematics are arbitrary, but the ones we accepted are not only consistent, but also happen to be applicable to natural sciences - they are useful.

I wouldn’t call mathematical axioms “arbitrary.” I would call them self-evidently true! And of course mathematics is applicable to nature. But who knows whether nature will decide this will always be the case…

The **principle of induction **is not provable, or verifiable. Indeed, it may lead one to incorrect results, as in the example: “all swans we have so far observed are white, therefore it is reasonable to assume that all swans are white”. It is a typical example of faulty induction - which will be refuted by observing one black swan - but it cannot be refuted by empty speculation! So what? The principle does not assert that there will be no faulty results, but it allows the process to incorporate these new observations and modify the original hypothesis (to wit: all swans are white).

Sure. But these faulty results are precisely why induction’s reliability is constantly called into question, whereas you can’t call into question the logical principle of non-contradiction.

Observe again: it does not say “… then it is a duck” - it merely says: “… then it is very probably a duck”. There is no absolute certainty, there cannot be any absolute certainty, and guess what - no one cares. It is still the best method available, it cannot be improved upon, it keeps on working. And its built-in possibility of error is also taken care of, by keeping to be aware of the possibility of error, and allowing the modification of the theories, if and when it is necessary. Only some ivory-tower philosophers try to undermine the process by pointing to some “errors”, which are already acknowledged and accounted for. In other words: “where is your black swan?”…

I fully agree with your remarks above, which is precisely why I think science does *not *have any more of a firm grasp on the “true nature of things” today than it did in the past. Scientific theories are always being overturned by the accumulation of new data. So how reliable is scientific methodology anyways? And what does it have to do with truth? All I see is functional utility, predictive power, and control. But as the history of science takes its course we constantly see utility and truth being split apart at its very methodological foundations. So at most, we can only measure the progress of science by its utilitarian successes, not by some alleged “God-like” ability to access the fundamental nature of empirical reality in one grand empirical “vision.”

Now, I answered your points, and I am going to ask you another question. Do you have a better solution, which would eliminate the perceived “errors” in the inductive method? Let us know. Be specific. And don’t dodge this time.

I agree, science is the best way to arrive at an understanding of how things work in empirical domain–further, it give us more empirical utility than it does actual empirical “truth.” And above all, science** does not **have anything to say about God, morality, beauty, or anything else for that matter–and it ought not to be made to say anything about these things which so many of you want it to do.

For, empirical methodologies are limited by our 5 senses and the 3 spatial dimensions we live in. But our own senses will never be the final arbiter on Truth. To suppose otherwise is making empirical methodology say things it is not actually saying–not to mention pretty presumptuous about the human being’s ability to understand things. And that would be your own *philosophical *position, not a *scientific *one if you thought that scientific methodology had the final say about everything.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

denying the law of noncontradiction could be dangerous if Avicenna had his way

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_contradiction#Aristotle.27s_attempt_at_proof

Avicenna gives a similar argument:

Anyone who denies the law of non-contradiction should be beaten and burned until he admits that to be beaten is not the same as not to be beaten, and to be burned is not the same as not to be burned.

 

[Syntax]

denying the law of noncontradiction could be dangerous if Avicenna had his way

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_contradiction#Aristotle.27s_attempt_at_proof

Avicenna gives a similar argument:

Anyone who denies the law of non-contradiction should be beaten and burned until he admits that to be beaten is not the same as not to be beaten, and to be burned is not the same as not to be burned.

ha ha ha! I didn’t know Avicenna ever said that. That’s way too funny!!

Someone should have burned and beaten Quine when he was still alive since he thought all logical laws of thought could be, in principle, overturned by empirical discovery.

I don’t even know what the results of an experiment would look like to be able falsify the principle of non-contradiction because then we would have to abandon thinking the experiment every really demonstrated anything–because the experiment could have easily both *shown *and not have shown the principle of non-contradiction was false.

 

[R_Daneel]

No, there’s no hidden “technique” here…sheesh. My stupid illustrative example was “rigged” against you from the beginning because you weren’t understanding the problem of induction. I had to “dumb it down” for you–and you STILL don’t get it. Of course how the example is set up isn’t flawless, that’s why I told you right from the start to “give me a rough estimate” and “not to bother crunching all the numbers.” “Cheating” is not the same thing as “illustrating.” You just feel cheated.

But your example does not illustrate anything. Why don’t you just refrain from “dumbing it down”, and give me a correct example? Then we can go forward.

The example is just an analogy designed to show our own cognitive limitations to the actual empirical world, the limitations provided by our own senses, and the limitations provided by what are called “scientific auxiliary hypotheses.”

On what grounds do you call our senses as “limitations”? Do you mean that we are unable to see, **because **we have eyes, we are unable to hear, **because **we have ears?

I don’t typically mistrust my senses. But I don’t have any reason for thinking the inductive method used to reach the accepted scientific theories of today is any more reliable than the same method used to reach the false scientific theories of the past. So how reliable is it, really?

Ah, here I see a huge discrepancy in our views. You blame the abstract method of induction when you should blame the insufficient or incorrect application of the method. By the same token, you could “blame” the hammer for breaking someone’s head, instead of blaming the person who wields it.

Of course. What’s your point? We still cannot empirically demonstrate the uniformity of nature. And as far as I know the laws of gravity could cease to exist tomorrow and there would be nothing I could do about it.

How could it? If you would apply the law of identity to nature, it would tell you that everything is itself, that the electrons will not change their electric charge from negative to positive, because if they did, they would cease to be electrons. An acorn will never grow into a rose-bush with flowers of juicy beef-steaks, because if it did, if would not be an acorn any more. Do you believe in magic? What is this “empirical demonstration” you request? Basic principles cannot be proven or demonstrated.

Simply because it is not been demonstrated that it IS uniform. This “possibility” is purely epistemic and is a function of my ignorance, just as thinking it is possible that nature takes its course according to deterministic laws is a function of my ignorance.

And here we reached the pivotal point of this conversation. Your stance is called “universal skepticism”, which is truly self-contradictory. If you doubt everything, you should also doubt that your stance is correct - which leads to a contradiction. You admit that you have absolutely no foundation for asserting that the nature of the universe might not be not uniform, you only bring up some empty speculation that it might not be, since it was never demonstrated! Please tell me what kind of “demonstration” would be sufficient to you?

Before you ask, I believe in the uniformity of nature because I hold the law of identity to be universal and because acorns never spontaneously grow into theologians, the Sun does not change suddenly into a red dwarf and then does not change into a giant ice-box, which does not change into a cherry-filled pie… in one word - there is no “magic” out there. As you also said, you lead your life according to the principle of nature’s uniformity (as any rational person does), you just don’t believe it to be correct. Don’t you find it ironic that you doubt the very foundation upon which you base your whole life?

No. Inductive of reasoning is much more problematic than the logical laws of thought such as logical law of non-contradiction. I would have less of a rational problem if the sun suddenly burnt out tomorrow violating the laws of physics than if I suddenly found out that I can both exist and not-exist at the same time and in the same sense, or if a mathematician suddenly proposed that the pythagorean theorem was false. They are totally disanalogous. Believe me, I have a much larger “faith” in math and logic than I do in the alleged laws of nature.

I wonder if your “faith” extends to the law of indentity? I simply said that no branch of science can prove or demonstrate its own foundation, and in this respect mathematics, logic and the natural sciences are indentical. You obviously respect the law of “non-contradiction”. Do you equally respect the law of identity? Based upon your words, you do not seem to be. On what grounds do you doubt it?

Continued below…

 

[R_Daneel]

Please explain which foundations of science are just accepted as “true.” I’m positive this isn’t correct at all since I am sure scientists would be willing to discard the law of thermodynamics or entropy if they really had to.

Yes, they would. That is the very strength of science. Nothing is “sacred”. If there would be a need, every basic scientific principle would be subject to revision. But the reason to do so would (and should) be overwhelming, not just an empty speculation that these principles “might” not be universal.

Indeed, up until the 19th century the Newtonian view of nature (a giant clockwork which deterministically traverses through an “absolute” time in an “absolute” space) was held as true and correct view of nature. Einstien himself was never able to change his view to the new concept of quantum mechanics. So what? The universe is very complex, our understanding of its “laws” is always subject to revision - but only if a really overwhelming reason demands it - not just because they “might” not be true.

I wouldn’t call mathematical axioms “arbitrary.” I would call them self-evidently true! And of course mathematics is applicable to nature. But who knows whether nature will decide this will always be the case…

Abstract sciences are more than just the conventional mathematics. It might be strange, but “chess” for example is an abstract “science”. However, its rules are arbitrary. And it is not “empty” or “void” of meaning and use.

Sure. But these faulty results are precisely why induction’s reliability is constantly called into question, whereas you can’t call into question the logical principle of non-contradiction.

I already answered this above. You seem to be confusing the problem of the method with the problem of its application.

I fully agree with your remarks above, which is precisely why I think science does *not *have any more of a firm grasp on the “true nature of things” today than it did in the past.

I am glad you put the phrase “true nature of things” in quotes, indicating that there is no such thing. Though I doubt you meant it this way. A question to you: “what is the true color of snow?”. If it is illuminated by sunlight, it seems to be white. If it is illuminated by a red lamp, it seems to be red. If it is illuminated by a green light, it seems to be green. Is there a “true” color of snow? I submit that there is not.

Scientific theories are always being overturned by the accumulation of new data. So how reliable is scientific methodology anyways? And what does it have to do with truth? All I see is functional utility, predictive power, and control. But as the history of science takes its course we constantly see utility and truth being split apart at its very methodological foundations. So at most, we can only measure the progress of science by its utilitarian successes, not by some alleged “God-like” ability to access the fundamental nature of empirical reality in one grand empirical “vision.”

Ah, at least a point where we can agree almost one hundred percent! Except the minor point that there is no “fundamental nature of empirical reality”.

I agree, science is the best way to arrive at an understanding of how things work in empirical domain–further, it give us more empirical utility than it does actual empirical “truth.” And above all, science** does not **have anything to say about God, morality, beauty, or anything else for that matter–and it ought not to be made to say anything about these things which so many of you want it to do.

You put too many things into your basket. Indeed, science says nothing special about God, except what Laplace said to Napoleon (when he asked Laplace why did he never referred to God, when he wrote his book about the movement of celestial bodies): “Sire, I have no need for that hypothesis”. Science does not care about God. Sciene does not care about what cannot be observed, what cannot be measured, what cannot be predicted. These things do not exist in a practical sense of the word. If these nebulous entities are supposed to be able to affect us physically, then they can be observed, measured and predicted. And if every attempt to measure, test and predict them leads to a failure, then “we have no need for that hypothesis”. Which leads back to your “box filled with balls” example. If those alleged “non-black” balls are there, they can be measured and examined. If they cannot be measured and exained, then they are not there.

The rest I am not so sure about. Indeed, today our knowledge of what makes some things “beautiful” to some people and “ugly” to others is almost nonexistent. But - in true inductive fashion - I hope that eventually it may find out just how our brain “works” and can quantify what “beauty” might be. Provided, of course, that anyone cares. I don’t.

For, empirical methodologies are limited by our 5 senses and the 3 spatial dimensions we live in. But our own senses will never be the final arbiter on Truth. To suppose otherwise is making empirical methodology say things it is not actually saying–not to mention pretty presumptuous about the human being’s ability to understand things. And that would be your own *philosophical *position, not a *scientific *one if you thought that scientific methodology had the final say about everything.

The fact that you capitalize “truth” indicates that there are some huge problems in communication. As far as I am concerned, the word “Truth” (capitalized) is a meaningless word.

 

[Syntax]

On what grounds do you call our senses as “limitations”? Do you mean that we are unable to see, **because **we have eyes, we are unable to hear, **because **we have ears?

(1) We can only see X; we can’t see Y and Z.
(2) We can only observe a finite set of cases, not all cases.
(3) Auxiliary hypotheses (like your own in the example, such that, “everything is equally accessible to the senses”) leading to faulty outcomes in tests.

All three constitute this problem of induction. We simply do not possess a “God’s-eye view” of nature.

Ah, here I see a huge discrepancy in our views. You blame the abstract method of induction when you should blame the insufficient or incorrect application of the method. By the same token, you could “blame” the hammer for breaking someone’s head, instead of blaming the person who wields it.

Huh? No. Induction is not always reliable. This has been shown repeatedly. But it’s all we have to guide our empirical beliefs. There is no descrepency here. This is the truth. You seem to not understand that the principle of induction is directly proporitional to our ignorance, and is a function of it. That’s precisely the source of its unreliability. I am not “blaming” the principle. I am only saying that this is the reality of it. Why do you still not understand this?

How could it? If you would apply the law of identity to nature, it would tell you that everything is itself, that the electrons will not change their electric charge from negative to positive, because if they did, they would cease to be electrons. An acorn will never grow into a rose-bush with flowers of juicy beef-steaks, because if it did, if would not be an acorn any more. Do you believe in magic? What is this “empirical demonstration” you request? Basic principles cannot be proven or demonstrated.

This is totally false. The logical law of self-identity, X=X, is not a law of nature. But I can see how you might confuse this. “Everything is self-identical” is trivially true and holds for all objects necessarily. But this doesn’t entail, “everything in the future will be just like everything in the past.”

For instance, “An electron must always behave like an electron” is not an identity statement at all–this is just a goofy way of expressing a law of nature because it introduces lawlike necessity into the behavior of the electron that has a **time expression **built into it–“always.” For all we know, electrons of tomorrow will stop behaving like the electrons we’ve observed in the past.

And here we reached the pivotal point of this conversation. Your stance is called “universal skepticism”, which is truly self-contradictory. If you doubt everything, you should also doubt that your stance is correct - which leads to a contradiction.

But I don’t “doubt everything.” So this alleged “universal skepticism” you are attributing to me is false.

You admit that you have absolutely no foundation for asserting that the nature of the universe might not be not uniform, you only bring up some empty speculation that it might not be, since it was never demonstrated!

How is this empty speculation? In fact, the original problem of induction arose among all the Empricists whom you so misunderstand but worship! You have just become overly complacent in your scientism, and never bothered questioning some of your assumptions.

Please tell me what kind of “demonstration” would be sufficient to you?

A full knowledge of every single position of every single particle at all times and places, both in the past and in the future. In other words, God’s intstaneous perception of all past and future events. But this is, of course, humanly impossible.

Before you ask, I believe in the uniformity of nature because I hold the law of identity to be universal and because acorns never spontaneously grow into theologians, the Sun does not change suddenly into a red dwarf and then does not change into a giant ice-box, which does not change into a cherry-filled pie… in one word - there is no “magic” out there.

Again, this is false. Self-identity is not a law of nature; it is a trivially true and uninformative logical principle.

As you also said, you lead your life according to the principle of nature’s uniformity (as any rational person does), you just don’t believe it to be correct. Don’t you find it ironic that you doubt the very foundation upon which you base your whole life?

Now you’re just pushing me around. I’ve already answered this same question several times, so it is apparently not going to be resolved between us. I base most of my **empirical **beliefs on induction, for sure. But I DON’T base my “whole life” on induction–this is what YOU do. In fact, I would say about half of my beliefs are non-emprically based. And I would bet a very good percentage of yours are too; you just never paid attention to all the axioms and the *a priori *logical and metaphysical principles at their foundations.

 

[Syntax]

I wonder if your “faith” extends to the law of indentity? I simply said that no branch of science can prove or demonstrate its own foundation, and in this respect mathematics, logic and the natural sciences are indentical. You obviously respect the law of “non-contradiction”. Do you equally respect the law of identity? Based upon your words, you do not seem to be. On what grounds do you doubt it?

You keep repeating yourself. The law of identity is not a law of nature.

I hold the law of identity, the principle of non-contradiction, the principle of bivalence, quantificational logic, propositional logic, modal logic, and all the formal rules of inference as self-evident and necessarily true. But I DON’T hold the principle of induction as self-evident at all. In fact, it is shown time and again to be unreliable, whereas the principle of non-contradiction has never been shown to fail to hold.

 

[Syntax]

I guess I agreed with most of what you said in this post. I will just mention a couple points.

I already answered this above. You seem to be confusing the problem of the method with the problem of its application.

This is incorrect. Read my other post. It is not a matter of being an incorrect application of an infallible principle, but an unavoidable application of a fallible principle that is a direct function of our epistemic limitations. Like I said, I don’t “blame” induction–there just isn’t anything we can do *about *it to change our epistemic situation.

I am glad you put the phrase “true nature of things” in quotes, indicating that there is no such thing. Though I doubt you meant it this way. A question to you: “what is the true color of snow?”. If it is illuminated by sunlight, it seems to be white. If it is illuminated by a red lamp, it seems to be red. If it is illuminated by a green light, it seems to be green. Is there a “true” color of snow? I submit that there is not.

Colors don’t exist in objects. I take colors to be (and excuse the expression) qualitative emergent mental properties logically supervenient on certain set of neurological states.

You put too many things into your basket.

That’s merely your opinion. Science doesn’t tell me what I should and should not put in my basket. YOU are telling me this. So this opinion of yours is totally an expression of your epistemic values which are predominantly empirical.

Indeed, science says nothing special about God, except what Laplace said to Napoleon (when he asked Laplace why did he never referred to God, when he wrote his book about the movement of celestial bodies): “Sire, I have no need for that hypothesis”. Science does not care about God. Sciene does not care about what cannot be observed, what cannot be measured, what cannot be predicted. These things do not exist in a practical sense of the word. If these nebulous entities are supposed to be able to affect us physically, then they can be observed, measured and predicted. And if every attempt to measure, test and predict them leads to a failure, then “we have no need for that hypothesis”. Which leads back to your “box filled with balls” example. If those alleged “non-black” balls are there, they can be measured and examined. If they cannot be measured and exained, then they are not there.

I am glad you mentioned this. This is precisely where our values part.

You said, if “X cannot be measured and examined, then X is not there.” This is a bad inference. Maybe you meant to say, “if X cannot be measured or examined, then X doesn’t exist for all scientific practical purposes”?

If you meant the latter, then I would agree with it. But you and Laplace presumably want to extend this principle to everything. I am saying you are totally unjustified in thinking that you can do this; and this is where your “faith” in science becomes immediately self-evident, because science itself doesn’t even advance this principle. YOU do.

Let me just add that you have no reason to assume that if science cannot detect, measure, or test X, then X has no meaning, value, or epistemic worth. I am saying we have absolutely no reason to believe this kind of empiricist principle is true. It is merely an ideology people will propose that science itself has no say about.

R Daneel;6400635:

The rest I am not so sure about. Indeed, today our knowledge of what makes some things “beautiful” to some people and “ugly” to others is almost nonexistent. But - in true inductive fashion - I hope that eventually it may find out just how our brain “works” and can quantify what “beauty” might be. Provided, of course, that anyone cares. I don’t.

yeah, but this is a terrible argument. People say the same thing about morality too. I’ve addressed this at great length so many times elsewhere that I don’t feel like addressing it at all right now. Suffice it to say that this view is a form of philosophical reductionism. And so many people who try to translate aesthetic or moral judgments into purely neurological terms continually fail to preserve linguistic. This attempt is a far cry from being successful at all.

The fact that you capitalize “truth” indicates that there are some huge problems in communication. As far as I am concerned, the word “Truth” (capitalized) is a meaningless word.

you can believe what you want. I take “the true” as having two functions: first, truth is a property of a proposition that veridically expresses some fact of the matter. Second, I take Truth to be the highest pinnacle of all knowledge, human wisdom, and the source of the Good.

Of course this sounds meaningless to you. But I really don’t care.

 

[R_Daneel]

You said, if “X cannot be measured and examined, then X is not there.” This is a bad inference. Maybe you meant to say, “if X cannot be measured or examined, then X doesn’t exist for all scientific practical purposes”?

We have some agreement, indeed, and yet some huge disagreement.

As you explicitly stated, you have no practical or empirical reason to doubt the principle of the uniformity of nature - your objection is just an epistemic principle - which translates to me into the words of “empty speculation”. You bet your life and your children’s life every second when you allow them to breathe, when you feed them food, and implictly trust that the food will not poison them, and the oxygen will not turn into odorless methane. Yet you said that your hypothesis (the food was not poisonous yesterday, therefore it is not poisonous today) only has a 50% chance of being true. And yet you take this tremendous gamble of risking their lives. Of course you do not see that as a huge gamble, since you cannot hold the proposition of “only 50%” as true - contrary to what you say. Your actions contradict your words.

What I actually said above: “for all practical purposes”. If something cannot be observed, if something cannot affect us in any way, it is a chimera, which does not merit any attention. However, if it does affect our existence, it becomes observable, measurable amd testable.

You said:

The logical law of self-identity, X=X, is not a law of nature. But I can see how you might confuse this. “Everything is self-identical” is trivially true and holds for all objects necessarily. But this doesn’t entail, “everything in the future will be just like everything in the past.”

Well, nor is the law of non-contradiction. Yet you apply it to nature all the time.

You also said:

A full knowledge of every single position of every single particle at all times and places, both in the past and in the future. In other words, God’s intstaneous perception of all past and future events. But this is, of course, humanly impossible.

So you “demand” a standard which you admit is impossible. Is that rational? As far as I see your stance is exactly as “rational” as that of a solipsist, who keeps arguing that I am merely a figment of his imagination.

Next you said:

How is this empty speculation? In fact, the original problem of induction arose among all the Empricists whom you so misunderstand but worship! You have just become overly complacent in your scientism, and never bothered questioning some of your assumptions.

I am always willing to re-examine all my assumptions, as soon as a compelling reason arises for that. So far you have shown none.

To summarize: I agree that one cannot make a sure-fire prediction of the future based upon the observations of the past. I agree that the inductive method may fail, if we use it based upon insufficient data, if we use it prematurely. We agree that it is still the best tool avalaible for us. We do have a lot to agree upon.

Where we disagree is the proposed “50% reliability of any hypothesis”. That is totally irrational. Our assurance that the laws of nature (as far as we understand them) will not change from one second to the next is not “merely 50%”, it is so close to “100%” that there is no practical reason to doubt it. Yet, I agree that “close to 100%” is not “100%”. It may happen that some of our basic assumptions will turn out to be false - just like it happened with the Newtonian world-view. If and when it will happen, then we can re-examine our assumptions.

People say the same thing about morality too. I’ve addressed this at great length so many times elsewhere that I don’t feel like addressing it at all right now. Suffice it to say that this view is a form of philosophical reductionism. And so many people who try to translate aesthetic or moral judgments into purely neurological terms continually fail to preserve linguistic. This attempt is a far cry from being successful at all.

Indeed it is a failure - for the time being. But didn’t you just assert that the past cannot predict the future? I think you did. On what grounds to you predict that this attempt will keep on failing? Is it just a “50%” chance?

Oh, and one more thing: I do not worship anything. I leave that activity to the believers of the unnatural (which is commonly, but mistakenly called “supernatural”).

 

[Thing]

As you explicitly stated, you have no practical or empirical reason to doubt the principle of the uniformity of nature - your objection is just an epistemic principle - which translates to me into the words of “empty speculation”. You bet your life and your children’s life every second when you allow them to breathe, when you feed them food, and implictly trust that the food will not poison them, and the oxygen will not turn into odorless methane. Yet you said that your hypothesis (the food was not poisonous yesterday, therefore it is not poisonous today) only has a 50% chance of being true. And yet you take this tremendous gamble of risking their lives. Of course you do not see that as a huge gamble, since you cannot hold the proposition of “only 50%” as true - contrary to what you say. Your actions contradict your words.

uhem… practically every mother alive tastes babys food first, primarily to see that it won’t burn or I suppose poison or upset them…… don’t know how that might affect your arguments, - I was not following.

What I actually said above: “for all practical purposes”. If something cannot be observed, if something cannot affect us in any way, it is a chimera, which does not merit any attention. However, if it does affect our existence, it becomes observable, measurable amd testable.

The devil is, for atheists, a chimera, a bogeyman for children.
Yet the devil is described as evil, and his products are Fear, hatred and temptation.
You may try to dismiss these things, like fear itself, as a chimera, but fear is measurable. testable and observable. Fear is real and it merits attention, as fears effect is to cause almost every trouble on earth, from wars to murder and violence etc.
Fear is also irrational. A proud atheist melts with fear of the dark, a saint is paralyzed with fear, children demand a nightlight. So I suppose whether or not you personally believe in a supernatural entity called the devil you still certainly are always subject to the ill effects of the devil, such as fear, anger, tempation etc., etc… If I consider these things to be natural and part of being human I also recognise them to have undesirable effects on my otherwise happy and peacefull existance, e.g. perhaps fear prevented me from acting when action was necessary. So these things may be explained as natural but irrational; if irrational why do I allow them to affect me or why do they exist at all in a creature who is rational and who lives rationally and who does not desire them.
I think I would have to conclude that since they are irrational and I do not want them that their presance, then, is being forced upon me against my will.
I think, though it may sound odd to you, that, as you are essentially a spiritual creature, insofar as your mind and will are not wholly material then an attack on an not-wholly-material presance can really only occur, in the absence of any tangiable reason, by an-not-wholly material enemy of your mind, since your mind has already rejected irrational disturbances to its peace.

 

[Syntax]

As you explicitly stated, you have no practical or empirical reason to doubt the principle of the uniformity of nature - your objection is just an epistemic principle - which translates to me into the words of “empty speculation”

You are just repeating the same empty accusation over and over again, and empty accusations carry no weight at all. What’s your argument anyway? This is just your way of kicking a dead horse.

What I actually said above: “for all practical purposes”. If something cannot be observed, if something cannot affect us in any way, it is a chimera, which does not merit any attention. However, if it does affect our existence, it becomes observable, measurable amd testable.

Ok, let’s make this clear. I understand “for all practical purposes” to mean “for all scientific purposes,” so that your principle does not extend beyond the domains of actual science, and what science can detect. So the principle is merely a trivially true statement and doesn’t say much at all on my account. My own formulation of this alleged “principle” would be:

(1) For some X in science, X exists if and only if X is observable, detectable, measurable.

I think this is true, but it doesn’t have much consequence, really.

But here are your own formulations that you seem to be making, both of which are totally unwarranted and contrary to actual scientific practice.

Since “chimera” means “illusory,” hence, non-existent, the first half of your principle above is:

(2) For all X in science, if X cannot be observed, X does not exist.

But this is not even scientifically plausible to believe. And every scientist that I know of would think this is false because there are many things science cannot detect, but which are still inferred to exist by their effects such as black holes, electrons, energy entropy, and elelctromagnetic forces.

The second half of your principle is much more problematic, and totally irrational to believe. It says:

(3) For all X in and outside of science, if X does affect our existence, then X is actually or potentially observable in science.

This is your own unmerited and unverifiable ideology–the very asserted content of your principle makes the principle itself chimeral and umerited since the principle ***affects ***your own epistemology of what you take to be rational and irrational belief, but it itself is unverifiable by science. Therefore, it is irrational to believe this principle is true. It is self-undermining–hence, this is your “faith.”

Well, nor is the law of non-contradiction. Yet you apply it to nature all the time.

So what? What’s your point RDaneel? Is this somehow supposed to convince me induction is just as reliable as the principle of non-contradiction and self-identity? But it is not.

So you “demand” a standard which you admit is impossible. Is that rational?

Oh I get it. You get to demand “proof” for God’s existence all you want from religious people–an impossible task. But somehow my demanding proof from you for your faith in science makes me irrational?? This is a huge double standard.

As far as I see your stance is exactly as “rational” as that of a solipsist, who keeps arguing that I am merely a figment of his imagination.

Strawman. Solipsism is the complete denial that one can know* anything *independent of his own thoughts. I never said this. I didn’t even come close to saying it.

I am always willing to re-examine all my assumptions, as soon as a compelling reason arises for that. So far you have shown none.

I just DID show that! What do you think we have been discussing for the past two weeks, pal??? Are you just totally lost?!

To summarize: I agree that one cannot make a sure-fire prediction of the future based upon the observations of the past. I agree that the inductive method may fail, if we use it based upon insufficient data, if we use it prematurely. We agree that it is still the best tool avalaible for us. We do have a lot to agree upon.

Where we disagree is the proposed “50% reliability of any hypothesis”. That is totally irrational. **Our assurance **that the laws of nature (as far as we understand them) will not change from one second to the next is not “merely 50%”, it is so close to “100%” that there is no practical reason to doubt it. Yet, I agree that “close to 100%” is not “100%”.

Now you are begging the question again with Laplace’s Rule of Succession:shrug: I’ve already shown inferring the hypothesis “the laws of nature exist” from n/n set of past observed cases makes the likelihood of this hypothesis being true infinitesimally close to zero. Therefore, it is your own unsubstantied belief that the existence of the laws of nature are even likely. Your “subjective assurances” are not objective probabilities at all. This is pure faith.

 

[Syntax]

Indeed it is a failure - for the time being. But didn’t you just assert that the past cannot predict the future? I think you did. On what grounds to you predict that this attempt will keep on failing? Is it just a “50%” chance?

Not so. I didn’t even say it will “keep on failing.” I only said that it has so far failed–which is true. I make no specualtions about the future.

Now let me ask you this: what evidence do you have for thinking these reduction methods will succed sometime in the future? Wait, you have none? Beware of the Gambler’s Fallacy in thinking that the failure of past reduction trials raises the probability that the next time around reduction is going to be a success…or that we are getting “closer and closer” to a successful reduction. This is also a Gambler’s fallacy, both reversed and irreversed.

Oh, and one more thing: I do not worship anything. I leave that activity to the believers of the unnatural (which is commonly, but mistakenly called “supernatural”).

Well, you certainly have complete faith in the following beliefs:

(1) It is highly likely the Laws of Nature Exist
(2) For all X in science, if X cannot be observed, X does not exist.
(3) For all X, if X does affect our existence, then X is actually and potentially observable in science.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Oh, and one more thing: I do not worship anything. I leave that activity to the believers of the unnatural (which is commonly, but mistakenly called “supernatural”).

actually natural and supernatural are technical metaphysical terms meaning, physical and non-physical respectively.

they are not mistaken. your comment here is.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

So what? What’s your point RDaneel? Is this somehow supposed to convince me induction is just as reliable as the principle of non-contradiction and self-identity? But it is not.

cognitive dissonance.

This is pure faith.

yup.

nothing but a faith. a cherished belif.

 

[R_Daneel]

uhem… practically every mother alive tastes babys food first, primarily to see that it won’t burn or I suppose poison or upset them…… don’t know how that might affect your arguments, - I was not following.

They test the warmth of the food, indeed, to make sure that the food was not overheated, or remained too cold, or maybe spoiled. But they do not test to see if the milk magically turned into arsenic. And no, it does not affect the argument.

The devil is, for atheists, a chimera, a bogeyman for children.
Yet the devil is described as evil, and his products are Fear, hatred and temptation.
You may try to dismiss these things, like fear itself, as a chimera, but fear is measurable. testable and observable. Fear is real and it merits attention, as fears effect is to cause almost every trouble on earth, from wars to murder and violence etc.

Fear, hatred, etc. certainly exist, and they are totally natural phenomena, and do not point to some invisible, untouchable, unmeasurable, disembodied, magical and evil creature. So does love, caring, etc. exist, and they are also natural emotions and activities.

Fear is also irrational. A proud atheist melts with fear of the dark, a saint is paralyzed with fear, children demand a nightlight. So I suppose whether or not you personally believe in a supernatural entity called the devil you still certainly are always subject to the ill effects of the devil, such as fear, anger, tempation etc., etc… If I consider these things to be natural and part of being human I also recognise them to have undesirable effects on my otherwise happy and peacefull existance, e.g. perhaps fear prevented me from acting when action was necessary. So these things may be explained as natural but irrational; if irrational why do I allow them to affect me or why do they exist at all in a creature who is rational and who lives rationally and who does not desire them.
I think I would have to conclude that since they are irrational and I do not want them that their presance, then, is being forced upon me against my will.

Your conclusion is unwarranted. Fear is not irrational in the general sense. Fear of the dark may be. So what?

 

[R_Daneel]

You are just repeating the same empty accusation over and over again, and empty accusations carry no weight at all. What’s your argument anyway? This is just your way of kicking a dead horse.

Did you already forget? You stated that the uniformity of nature is just an unfounded assumption, because not “all” of nature has been observed. I countered it with the mathematical truth that statistical sampling (number of observations) makes your hypothesis have a probability of so near to zero that it is irrelevant. You live your life according to my world-view and not your own. You said that the uniformity of nature is apparent, but since not “all” of nature has been observed (especially the future) it “might” happen that the laws of nature “might” change from one instance to the next. You also said that you do not have any practical reason for this assumption. What you say is sheer speculation, and your denial of this does not constitute an argument. A rose by any other name is still a rose.

Also you make a huge error, you confuse the the tentative explanations for the obvserved facts with their explanations (the laws of nature). Indeed the explanations do change - as they should as our knowledge grows. But the fact of gravity does not change, and there is absolutely no reason to assume that it will (suddenly or gradually) change from attraction to repulsion.

Ok, let’s make this clear. I understand “for all practical purposes” to mean “for all scientific purposes,” so that your principle does not extend beyond the domains of actual science, and what science can detect.

No. When I say “practical purposes”, I mean exactly what I said. Many parts of life have nothing to do with pure science. Art, emotions all exist, they affect our lives, and they are **outside **of the scientific domain. But that fact does not lend any credence to some non-physical intelligences (plural intended), which can affect our lives in a physical manner.

So what? What’s your point RDaneel? Is this somehow supposed to convince me induction is just as reliable as the principle of non-contradiction and self-identity? But it is not.

I did not say it is. For the record I will repeat that none of the basic assumptions can be used to justify themselves.

Oh I get it. You get to demand “proof” for God’s existence all you want from religious people–an impossible task. But somehow my demanding proof from you for your faith in science makes me irrational?? This is a huge double standard.

I don’t recall demanding “proof” for God’s existence - not in this thread. However, if I did, it would be rational. If you express doubt in the existence of gravity, I offer the simple proof of observation. If you assert that God exists, and cannot offer any experiment to “sunstantiate” it, then your assertion stays an empty speculation. The two are not even in the same ballpark.

Strawman. Solipsism is the complete denial that one can know* anything *independent of his own thoughts. I never said this. I didn’t even come close to saying it.

I did not say that you did. I said that your position is exactly as irrational as that of the solipsist. You actions contradict your professed belief.

Now you are begging the question again with Laplace’s Rule of Succession:shrug: I’ve already shown inferring the hypothesis “the laws of nature exist” from n/n set of past observed cases makes the likelihood of this hypothesis being true infinitesimally close to zero. Therefore, it is your own unsubstantied belief that the existence of the laws of nature are even likely. Your “subjective assurances” are not objective probabilities at all. This is pure faith.

Here is the url, read it: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_succession. I does not deal with the laws of nature, it deals with random events. The correct example would not be to infer the heads-tails result of a coin toss, it deals with the experiment of tossing a coin in the air and hypothesize that the coin will drop at all, or stays hanging in the air. You kept on saying that the probability of the coin staying up in the air is 50% - which is sheer nonsense. The probability of a head is indeed 50% **if **both results are equally likely. Your “example” simply proves to me that you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[Thing]

Well, you said this first;
"R Daneel:

What I actually said above: “for all practical purposes”. If something cannot be observed, if something cannot affect us in any way, it is a chimera, which does not merit any attention. However, if it does affect our existence, it becomes observable, measurable amd testable.

Fear, hatred, etc. certainly exist, and **they are totally natural **phenomena, and do not point to some invisible, untouchable, unmeasurable, disembodied, magical and evil creature. So does love, caring, etc. exist, and they are also natural emotions and activities.

Your conclusion is unwarranted. Fear is not irrational in the general sense. Fear of the dark may be. So what?

Murder may arise from fear and hatred, as an example; now, murder is not a totally natural activity. Do people think it is normal to murder - or abnormal. Are all murderers abnormal? Is murder so a disease? Why did nobody diagnose it?
The fact is that there is a reason for such things as murder, and the reason is not normal, it is not a disease, and it is not rational. But it is very real, which is the point;

If something cannot be observed, if something cannot affect us in any way, it is a chimera, which does not merit any attention.

So this evil of murder is not natural nor is it a mere chimera to be brushed aside from our minds nor are murderers born abnormal - something grips the mind of a murderer and forces a normal mind to act abnormally, a rational mind to act irrationally, a sane mind to act insanely. Yet there still is no disease there to treat. It is a mystery why a mind would give itself over to irrationality and abnormality. And this particular mystery has its own explanation - a unexplained force which overwhelms a Mind and alters it specifically for the worse.

 

[Sarpedon]

R Daneel, a book you might be interested in, if you haven’t already read it, is The Unity of Philosophical Experience by Etienne Gilson. This book traces the history of philosophy from the scholastics through Descartes and then the later modern materialist philosophies.

It seems to me like a lot of atheists view material empirical observation as the obvious and only method of epistemology. The problem is that such an epistemological method is in fact epistemology, and therefore firmly in the domain of philosophy. Gilson’s book is an examination of how and why philosophies rise and fall, and why the modern materialist view of the world is incredibly naive if not grounded in the overall story of philosophy. I’m not trying to say that you are naive, but I think a lot of people support modern materialist epistemology without really understanding where that view came from or where it is going.

 

[R_Daneel]

Murder may arise from fear and hatred, as an example; now, murder is not a totally natural activity. Do people think it is normal to murder - or abnormal. Are all murderers abnormal? Is murder so a disease? Why did nobody diagnose it?
The fact is that there is a reason for such things as murder, and the reason is not normal, it is not a disease, and it is not rational. But it is very real, which is the point;

So this evil of murder is not natural nor is it a mere chimera to be brushed aside from our minds nor are murderers born abnormal - something grips the mind of a murderer and forces a normal mind to act abnormally, a rational mind to act irrationally, a sane mind to act insanely. Yet there still is no disease there to treat. It is a mystery why a mind would give itself over to irrationality and abnormality. And this particular mystery has its own explanation - a unexplained force which overwhelms a Mind and alters it specifically for the worse.

Murder is a special form or subset of killing. Killing is wholly natural. Some types of murder can be classified as irrational. But that does not point to some invisible force exerting influence on our behavior.

 

[R_Daneel]

R Daneel, a book you might be interested in, if you haven’t already read it, is The Unity of Philosophical Experience by Etienne Gilson. This book traces the history of philosophy from the scholastics through Descartes and then the later modern materialist philosophies.

It seems to me like a lot of atheists view material empirical observation as the obvious and only method of epistemology. The problem is that such an epistemological method is in fact epistemology, and therefore firmly in the domain of philosophy. Gilson’s book is an examination of how and why philosophies rise and fall, and why the modern materialist view of the world is incredibly naive if not grounded in the overall story of philosophy. I’m not trying to say that you are naive, but I think a lot of people support modern materialist epistemology without really understanding where that view came from or where it is going.

Thank you, I will look at it, if I run into it. As for epistemology, it is indeed a part of philosophy.