What is this "scientific method" you all speak of?

[tonyrey]

Are your a tonyrey “incarnate”? He is the one who spouts all sorts of nonsense, and when people ignore him, starts to assert that the silence “indicates” either “assent” or “impotent dissent”. My posts explicitly and exactly say what I mean, they do not need “interpretation”. So shut up or put up.

I have reported you for repeated discourtesy and disrespect for Christianity.

 

[Hee_Zen]

I have reported you for repeated discourtesy and disrespect for Christianity.

Dissent is not disrespect.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Metaphysics without epistemology is empty speculation. Only a proper epistemological method can help metaphysics to be become “respectable”. Now the next objection is usually: “but you cannot substantiate the epistemological method by using it on itself!”. Not directly of course, but indirectly most definitely. Every time we use the “verify / falsify” epistemological method, we verify that it leads to true propositions. And while it does not “prove” its veracity, **it tells us that it is a useful method. **

However, as always, I am open to see something alternative. Do you have a competing, different epistemological method which consistently leads to true propositions? Of course if you try, you will immediately run into the roadblock of separating the true propositions from the false ones. And without the “verify / falsify” method you are in a hopeless position.

I never claimed that its is the ONLY one. I ASKED for alternative ones, and there is STILL no reply. I am getting somewhat desperate. You guys (and maybe gals) keep putting words into my mouth, which I never uttered. That is most unfortunate, because it is serious impediment on getting somewhere.

Feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but aren’t you claiming above that as an epistemological method, the scientific method is the only one which properly and fully complies with the verify/falsify requirement that you propose must be part of any epistemological method for it to function to properly determine the truth?

That would seem your claim. Not that I am trying to put words in your mouth – merely trying to ascertain whether the words coming out of your mouth (metaphorically speaking) carry any discernible meaning for anyone other than yourself. (Up to now, no one has been able to get what you mean or avoid being castigated by you for ‘missing the boat,’ so to speak.)

My claim against such a claim (even if it isn’t what you, in fact, do claim,) would be that verify/falsify is insufficient because merely knowing that something is factually true and verifiable about the natural world tells us nothing about the significance of that fact nor does it provide the sense in which it is important that the fact be true. In other words, what difference does the fact make or how meaningful is the fact, even if it is true?

You might claim that the difference is in its usefulness, and you even hint as much. You say the verify/falsify method “is a useful method” implying that its capacity to verify or falsify facts is sufficient to place the method at the apex of epistemology. (Yes, I know this is not what you SAID, exactly, but it IS your meaning, is it not?)

The problem here is that verify/falsify – even if it is practically the best or only available method – does not provide a method by which to distinguish significant from insignificant. Things may be trivially true and still be true; significantly false but still false. By what method do we determine significance – which arguably is far more important than verify/falsify. Neither does the scientific method nor verify/falsify as a general epistemological capacity get us there.

Just one example. If Hitler had been completely successful and showed that, practically speaking, his ability to use verify/falsify to build weapons, armies, political support, strategize world domination, etc., etc., that would leave YOU completely unable to respond to him. He would have verified every claim and decision of his by “proving” it to have been true by its very implementation. It might even be claimed that Hitler failed BECAUSE he made errors of calculation.

That leaves you in a profound mess. Verify/falsify is a practical method of determining what is true about the world, but it gets us nowhere in the determination of what is significant. For that, we need to address an entirely different epistemological dimension – ends and means. I sugggest that truth is not and cannot be one dimensional in the way that you suggest (yes, I know, you didn’t say that, exactly,) but, rather, insist that truth MUST BE multidimensional.

Truth cannot be merely about verifying/falsifying what IS, but MUST address what OUGHT to be in order to be COMPLETELY USEFUL in the sense you claim: “…you will immediately run into the roadblock of separating the true propositions from the false ones. And without the “verify / falsify” method you are in a hopeless position.”

Without a proper method to address the significant/insignificant issue we are still in a “hopeless position” since verify/falsify does not, on its own, get us out of it.

We must be able to do (at least) both: address the verify/falsify issue, but also the significant/insignificant issue with epistemological certainty.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Are your a tonyrey “incarnate”? He is the one who spouts all sorts of nonsense,…

Using your words alone, without any attempt at reading meaning into them, the following WORDS show that “he is not the only one” since these words of yours are definitely nonsense…

Are your a tonyrey “incarnate”?

Am I quoting your exact words “back to you” effectively, now, and following forum rules?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Are your a tonyrey “incarnate”?

At the risk of taking liberty with your “exact words,” I suspect – though I might be wrong – that you mean: “Are you a tonyrey incarnate?”

I would have to honestly answer no, because I wouldn’t want my words and deeds to reflect badly for Tony.

I quite respect the fact that he can encapsulate germaine and important ideas in one liners. I tend to go on ad infinitum. That difference is more a quantitative, than qualitative, one, however.

 

[Ben_Quincy]

Thread Warning:

Discuss the topic, not each other.

 

[Hee_Zen]

Feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but aren’t you claiming above that as an epistemological method, the scientific method is the only one which properly and fully complies with the verify/falsify requirement that you propose must be part of any epistemological method for it to function to properly determine the truth?

That is a valid question, introduced in a respectable way - and I am happy to answer it. The answer is “no”. The “scientific method” is only applicable to claims about the objectively existing external reality. It is not applicable to claims within an axiomatic system, like mathematics, or historical claims, or claims about ethics, or claims about aesthetics. I hope that we are now in synch. Epistemological methods must be “tailored” to the type of claim which is under discussion.

Just one example. In mathematics there is the famous Goldbach conjecture, which says that every even number is the sum of two prime numbers. This is a “conjecture” - not a theorem. It was verified for millions of even numbers - but that verification cannot tell us if the conjecture is true for ALL the even numbers. For that we need a “proof”, which has not been found yet. However, even one counter example would falsify the conjecture, so the falsification method is still very important. This example should be a convincing argument that I do not hold the verification / falsification method as the ONE and ONLY epistemological method. Are we in synch now?

My claim against such a claim (even if it isn’t what you, in fact, do claim,) would be that verify/falsify is insufficient because merely knowing that something is factually true and verifiable about the natural world tells us nothing about the significance of that fact nor does it provide the sense in which it is important that the fact be true. in other words, what difference does it make or how meaningful is the fact, even if it is true?

As I said before, I agree with this - completely.

You might claim that the difference is in its usefulness, and you even hint as much. You say the verify/falsify method “is a useful method” implying that the capacity to verify or falsify facts is sufficient to place it at the apex of epistemology. (Yes, I know this is not what you said, exactly, but it IS your meaning, is it not?)

No, it is not what I said, and not what I meant either. It is one epistemological method, which is used in one respect only. And I hope we can have that misunderstanding out of the way.

The problem here is that verify/falsify even if it is practically the best or only available method does not provide a method by which to distinguish significant from insignificant. Things may be trivially true and still be true; significantly false but still false. By what method do we determine significance – which arguably is far more important than verify/falsify. Neither does the scientific method nor verify/falsify as a general epistemological capacity get us there.

Of course the “what exists” is the most important question of all. The “what should we do with it” is of secondary importance. I don’t say, nor do I insinuate that it is unimportant. Not at all. It is extremely important. But it cannot supersede the importance of “what exists”, since the “what shall we do with it” cannot happen in a vacuum. It must be based in the reality. Don’t you agree?

That leaves you in a profound mess. Verify/falsify is a practical method of determining what is true about the world, but it gets us nowhere in the determination of what is significant.

Well, the phrase “nowhere” is a bit strong. Since the method gives us a good understanding of “what exists”, it certainly helps us to take the next step, and start to ponder the “significance” of what “exists”.

For that we need to address an entirely different epistemological dimension – ends and means.I sugggest that truth is not and cannot be one dimensional in the way that you suggest (yes, I know, you didn’t say that, exactly) but must be multidimensional.

Of course! If you thought that this is what I suggested, then I am glad to say that it was simply a misunderstanding.

Now, since we ARE making significant progress, I would like to ask if you agree that “universal negatives” cannot be proven in an inductive (non-axiomatic) system? That was another roadblock to mutual understanding.

If there are any more possible misunderstandings, please do bring them up.

… and Happy Nude Year

 

[Peter_Plato]

Now, since we ARE making significant progress, I would like to ask if you agree that “universal negatives” cannot be proven in an inductive (non-axiomatic) system? That was another roadblock to mutual understanding.

That would depend upon where the inductive system abides. If the inductive system lives within an absolute – ontologically speaking – “system,” then universal negatives could be proven – not BY the inductive system but ABOUT or with reference to the inductive system.

The question is whether we live within an inductive system or, further, within an absolute.

If there are any more possible misunderstandings, please do bring them up.

… and Happy Nude Year

Too cold here for that.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

You mean you don’t know such a basic philosophical concept? It means the objective existence outside our consciousness, something that exist, whether we are aware of it, or not.

When I say “That’s beautiful” or “That’s funny” I’m not talking about what is in my head alone. When you make something that is intended to be beautiful or funny, you are making a thing, and you can never entirely separate the thing you have made from the mind of its maker. Whether you make a poem or a joke, you have made something physical that is at the same time mental (or even spiritual, as in the case of sacred music). It exists in its own right as well as in the mind of its maker.

When the great works of art or humor are created, we verify their creation not only by their popularity, but by their embodiment of the principles of aesthetic beauty. An artistic thing must conform to its intention. If the artist does not succeed at this, his work will be panned and fall into neglect. If the artist succeeds, his work will prosper in the minds of others.

This is a conundrum for the materialist.

 

[Hee_Zen]

That would depend upon where the inductive system abides. If the inductive system lives within an absolute – ontologically speaking – “system,” then universal negatives could be proven – not BY the inductive system but ABOUT or with reference to the inductive system.

The question is whether we live within an inductive system or, further, within an absolute.

I don’t get it. Maybe an example would help. Here is a “universal negative” proposition: “There are NO yellow-purple striped elephants which sustain themselves on pure nuclear fission”. How are you going to prove this proposition? To disprove it would be easy: just present one of those beings, and the universal negative proposition would be refuted.

Of course there is another serious epistemological problem here. The “absolute system” (whatever it might be) exists independently from us, so it is an (or “the”) ontologically existing reality. As such the scientific method is applicable for it. I am sure you see the difficulty. If you assert that the “scientific method” is NOT applicable, then you need to present an “alternate epistemological method”.

 

[Hee_Zen]

When I say “That’s beautiful” or “That’s funny” I’m not talking about what is in my head alone. When you make something that is intended to be beautiful or funny, you are making a thing, and you can never entirely separate the thing you have made from the mind of its maker. Whether you make a poem or a joke, you have made something physical that is at the same time mental (or even spiritual, as in the case of sacred music). It exists in its own right as well as in the mind of its maker.

The actual poem or the joke or the musical score certainly exist - and will continue to exist, as long as someone remembers it, or the written copy survives. But are they “funny”, “beautiful” or maybe “inspiring”? What method do you wish to employ to make distinction between beautiful or ugly?

When the great works of art or humor are created, we verify their creation not only by their popularity, but by their embodiment of the principles of aesthetic beauty.

You made a reference to “popularity”, which is simply a reference to the opinion of the majority… a well known fallacy. I am talking about any joke, not some “great works of art” or humor. I am also talking about jokes which are very offensive to certain people and side splittingly funny for others. There are jokes which are in really “bad taste” according to some people. John Callahan’s cartoons make fun of crippled people - but since he was a quadriplegic himself, he could “get away” with it. But if a joke is considered funny by some and horribly insulting by others - who is right?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The actual poem or the joke or the musical score certainly exist - and will continue to exist, as long as someone remembers it, or the written copy survives. But are they “funny”, “beautiful” or maybe “inspiring”? What method do you wish to employ to make distinction between beautiful or ugly?

The actual laws of physics as laws will also exist as long as someone is around to remember them.

The methods of distinguishing the beautiful from the ugly are generally well known on the instinctive if not the conscious level.

Proportion. Truth. Originality. Delight.

This is not to exclude other elements of the beautiful.

Ugly would be the absence of the above in varying degrees.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

You made a reference to “popularity”, which is simply a reference to the opinion of the majority… a well known fallacy. I am talking about any joke, not some “great works of art” or humor. I am also talking about jokes which are very offensive to certain people and side splittingly funny for others. There are jokes which are in really “bad taste” according to some people. John Callahan’s cartoons make fun of crippled people - but since he was a quadriplegic himself, he could “get away” with it. But if a joke is considered funny by some and horribly insulting by others - who is right?

Yes, there is room for disagreement about what is funny and what is not.

But I don’t see why anyone would regard a beautiful sunrise or sunset as not beautiful.

The opinion of the majority is not of itself a fallacy. It’s only when the opinion of the majority is proven false that appeals to the authority of the majority is false.

 

[Hee_Zen]

The actual laws of physics as laws will also exist as long as someone is around to remember them.

Exactly true! Now employ this principle to other fields, and we shall get somewhere.

The methods of distinguishing the beautiful from the ugly are generally well known on the instinctive if not the conscious level.

That is the description of subjectivity. It is rather banal, but nevertheless true that “one man’s trash is another one’s treasure”. Just consider the “standards of beauty”, they change every generation. Sometimes the “beauty queen” is chubby, sometimes she is tall and slim. In the middle ages the depiction of Madonna expressed the “standard” of beauty of those times. By today’s standards those bulging eyes (due to the lack of iodine in the drinking water) would be considered rather ugly. Not to mention that different contemporary cultures have widely different “standards” of beauty.

Proportion. Truth. Originality. Delight.

There are problems here. Which proportion is “beautiful” and which one is “ugly”? I have no idea what you mean by “truth”. Originality is interesting. Do you really think that the “original” Mona Lisa is beautiful, but the copies are not? One man’s delight is another one’s boredom.

Yes, there is room for disagreement about what is funny and what is not.

Of course… this because what constitutes “funny” is subjective. And the same applies to “beauty”. In the contemporary Western cultures the “tall, slim, blue or green eyed, blond and long haired women” are considered “the standards of beauty”.

But I don’t see why anyone would regard a beautiful sunrise or sunset as not beautiful.

The trivial example is a blind person. A not so trivial one might be a grieving mother whose child drowned in a lake at a “beautiful” sunset, so every time she sees it, her painful memories emerge. An interesting tidbit came into my mind. Many or even most people like the taste of “sweet”. Children simply “love” chocolate. However, when children in Africa - who never experienced the taste of a chocolate before, were given their first piece of chocolate - they simply spat it out, and considered the taste of “sweet” awful. That is why the phrase “de gustibus non est disputandum” is such a wise and true observation.

The opinion of the majority is not of itself a fallacy. It’s only when the opinion of the majority is proven false that appeals to the authority of the majority is false.

No, the fallacy is called “argumentum ad numeram”. Just because many people assert that a proposition is true, that fact does not make the proposition true. But of course you already knew that.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Exactly true! Now employ this principle to other fields, and we shall get somewhere.

That is the description of subjectivity. It is rather banal, but nevertheless true that “one man’s trash is another one’s treasure”.
Hee_Zen;12625458:

The laws of physics as laws have their ontological being in us.

This is also true for aesthetics and morality.

There are, it is true, some people who beheld the bodies piled up high in Hitler’s concentration camps as a beauty to behold. The rest of us thought they were the quintessence of malevolence and ugliness. One group is absolutely right and the other group is absolutely wrong. Or are you now going to argue that beauty, morality and truth are just a matter of taste because they not experienced by all people in precisely the same way>

 

[Peter_Plato]

Exactly true! Now employ this principle to other fields, and we shall get somewhere.

Give the guy an inch and he’ll take a mile.

Why would it be considered “getting somewhere” unless you have already decided where we should be getting?

This is the problem, I suspect: it isn’t so much about trying to understand THE truth as it is about leading others to YOUR truth.

That is the description of subjectivity. It is rather banal, but nevertheless true that “one man’s trash is another one’s treasure”. Just consider the “standards of beauty”, they change every generation.

That isn’t “the description of subjectivity;” it is YOUR description of subjectivity. THE description of subjectivity is more like the following: **When the principle for determining the answer to an issue or question lies completely within the subject and not the object, THEN the issue is a subjective one.
**
When a question is to be determined, for example, by the tastebuds of a subject, then de gustibus non est disputandum is the principle by which subjective “taste” is determined. But that is determinably BECAUSE it IS a matter is for individual tastebuds within the subject to determine.

Again, merely because answers to questions “change every generation” does not mean, ipso facto, that those questions are matters of taste. Answers to questions of science also change every generation, but that fact on its own does not make questions of science subjective.

The question which continually needs to be asked is whether the question or issue is one to be settled by individual taste or preference (and therefore subjective) or by something which is inherent in or to the object (and therefore objective.)

You keep trying to slip this one past us as if we’ll get duped merely by your repeating it over and over again. We have been through this before on this very thread.

Objective beauty, along with ethical principles and laws of physics may be wrongly determined or go unrecognized by any particular subjective “gustibus” at any particular time or place, but that, in itself, does not make the issue a matter for taste to decide since the issue might not be one that can be determined by something about the subject (like having tastebuds), but by something about the object itself (the essential nature, principles or laws governing objects that subjects try to comprehend.)

 

[inocente]

The question which continually needs to be asked is whether the question or issue is one to be settled by individual taste or preference (and therefore subjective) or by something which is inherent in or to the object (and therefore objective.)

You keep trying to slip this one past us as if we’ll get duped merely by your repeating it over and over again. We have been through this before on this very thread.

Objective beauty, along with ethical principles and laws of physics may be wrongly determined or go unrecognized by any particular subjective “gustibus” at any particular time or place, but that, in itself, does not make the issue a matter for taste to decide since the issue might not be one that can be determined by something about the subject (like having tastebuds), but by something about the object itself (the essential nature, principles or laws governing objects that subjects try to comprehend.)

The thread is about science, so let’s use the scientific method.

The null hypothesis H[sub]0[/sub], what seems most probable and self-evident, is that people have different ideas of what is beautiful, that beauty is subjective, existing in the mind seeing a thing rather than in the thing itself.

You are proposing the alternative hypothesis H[sub]a[/sub], that beauty exists in the thing itself.

Science has exacting standards which require you to make a prediction by which your hypothesis can be tested empirically. If your hypothesis fails or if you can’t even propose a test, the null hypothesis stands.

What is your testable prediction? Why should we accept your hypothesis rather than what has always seemed self-evident, that beauty is in the eye of the beholder?

 

[Bahman]

The thread is about science, so let’s use the scientific method.

The null hypothesis H[sub]0[/sub], what seems most probable and self-evident, is that people have different ideas of what is beautiful, that beauty is subjective, existing in the mind seeing a thing rather than in the thing itself.

You are proposing the alternative hypothesis H[sub]a[/sub], that beauty exists in the thing itself.

Science has exacting standards which require you to make a prediction by which your hypothesis can be tested empirically. If your hypothesis fails or if you can’t even propose a test, the null hypothesis stands.

What is your testable prediction? Why should we accept your hypothesis rather than what has always seemed self-evident, that beauty is in the eye of the beholder?

That is not a correct statement. What is knowledgeable whether it is related to feeling, art, or reason, science needs a trained mind without that the concepts like beautiful, ugly, good, evil, etc are all meaningless.

 

[Hee_Zen]

The laws of physics as laws have their ontological being in us.

This proposition is self-contradictory. If something exists as an ontological object, then it cannot reside in us, then it exists independently from us.

This is also true for aesthetics and morality.

I suggest you separate the ethical and aesthetical propositions, because they refer to two different disciplines.

There are, it is true, some people who beheld the bodies piled up high in Hitler’s concentration camps as a beauty to behold. The rest of us thought they were the quintessence of malevolence and ugliness. One group is absolutely right and the other group is absolutely wrong.

That is a subjective opinion (which I share). But you can rectify it, if you present an objective epistemological method which will separate the two views.

Or are you now going to argue that beauty, morality and truth are just a matter of taste because they not experienced by all people in precisely the same way>

These categories do not belong into one proposition. But “beauty” is definitely subjective. You need to define “morality” if you wish to discuss it, because I think that your definition is different from mine. And “truth” is also a concept, which refers to a one-to-one correspondence between something and it mental image.

 

[Hee_Zen]

Give the guy an inch and he’ll take a mile.

Hey, that is human nature. But that “inch” was a very significant one. It pointed to the possibility of reaching a consensus, which I find quite promising.

Why would it be considered “getting somewhere” unless you have already decided where we should be getting?

“Somewhere” is a very vague “end point” (intentionally so). It does not mean directly or insinuates indirectly a specific end point. I suggest you ask what I mean, when in doubt. I am happy to answer questions.

This is the problem, I suspect: it isn’t so much about trying to understand THE truth as it is about leading others to YOUR truth.

Are you “innocent” in this respect? Don’t you try to convince me about ***your version ***of “truth”? But I will have to contradict what you suggested. ***I am open ***to your suggestions. If the final result is that I will have to abandon what I believe is “true”, and accept what you propose is “true”, then so be it. By the way, what is “THE truth”?

That isn’t “the description of subjectivity;” it is YOUR description of subjectivity. THE description of subjectivity is more like the following: **When the principle for determining the answer to an issue or question lies completely within the subject and not the object, THEN the issue is a subjective one.
**

I fail to see the difference. You said the same thing, with different words. If we consider different oblongs, with different ratios of the sides, most (but not all) people will choose the one with the ratio of “1.618… to 1” (or 1 : 0.618…) as the most pleasing. Others might choose the ratio of “2 : 1” or “16 : 9”, or maybe the “1 : 1” ratio as more pleasing. There is nothing “intrinsically” more pleasing about the number 1.618… (square root of five plus one divided by two) which would make it more pleasing.

When a question is to be determined, for example, by the tastebuds of a subject, then de gustibus non est disputandum is the principle by which subjective “taste” is determined. But that is determinably BECAUSE it IS a matter is for individual tastebuds within the subject to determine.

Yes, and the same applies to “smell”, too. A dog finds the smell of a pile of excrement “pleasing”, and demonstrates this by throwing itself onto it, and rolling around happily. For us it is just a horrible stench. Also to the tones of a musical piece. Also to the colors put on a canvas… Why would one of our senses (taste) be fundamentally different from the other ones?

Again, merely because answers to questions “change every generation” does not mean, ipso facto, that those questions are matters of taste. Answers to questions of science also change every generation, but that fact on its own does not make questions of science subjective.

Ah, but the propositions of science can be ascertained by the scientific method, while there is no such method for the question of beauty. Apples and oranges. Now, if you could present a testable epistemological method - for example a “beauty-meter” - then the situation would change.

The question which continually needs to be asked is whether the question or issue is one to be settled by individual taste or preference (and therefore subjective) or by something which is inherent in or to the object (and therefore objective.)

It is your task to present a method which will decide this question. Inocente has presented the same problem.

Objective beauty, along with ethical principles and laws of physics may be wrongly determined or go unrecognized by any particular subjective “gustibus” at any particular time or place, but that, in itself, does not make the issue a matter for taste to decide since the issue might not be one that can be determined by something about the subject (like having tastebuds), but by something about the object itself (the essential nature, principles or laws governing objects that subjects try to comprehend.)

Well, you presented your hypothesis. I am eagerly waiting for the proof.

Now I find it promising that you accepted that the “pleasing taste” is only contingent upon the taste buds - if I understand your position correctly. (If I am off the mark, please correct me.) If I am right in this assessment, it would be a miniature, but still significant step toward mutual understanding.

The next question is the “proving a universal negative proposition”. You gave a hypothesis that “universal negatives” CAN be proven in a “hypothesized” absolute system. How are you going to prove this? Consider that elephant in my previous post.