shh wrote:But there's no reason imo to suppose that if God exists methodological naturalism must fail, nor to suppose that a working model is equivalent to an objectively true one.

That's a modern rewordinging of an ancient concept of God. There's no reason to believe the ancient concept is at all workable in any sense. Those people were very ignorant of a lot of things. The modern rewordinging is patches on legacy code.

The whoe thing seems like a non-sequitir to me, and easily avoided by the theist because without teleology there's no evidence that the universe is rational, sure our explanations are, because we refuse any other kind.

Legacy code is almost always a non-sequitur masquerading as a precursor. Ad hoc is another term applied to it.

A rewordinging should actually attempt to improve upon what it is trying to restate.

shh wrote: I don't think so, I'm not sure what you mean by methodological naturalism being valid, or really what's ever meant by valid, it seems to mean accepted.

Just speaking for myself, what it seems to mean is that every observation we make is consistent with the assumptions of methodological naturalism (that there is no supernatural being influencing the universe.) So, for instance, we don't have to make allowances in scientific research to avoid measuring the occurence of supernatural events. (I realize "valid" might not be the technically correct term to use here.)

As an example, suppose a team was investigating a new anti-cancer drug and obtained the following results: In the treatment group, 75% of patients got better. In the control group, 50% of patients got better, but in 25% an angel suddenly appeared in the room and shot rays out of its eyes that immediately caused the tumour to evaporate. If we want to answer the question as to whether the drug is effective, we have to eliminate those miracle cures from our statistical analysis. If we regularly encountered situations like this, we would still view methodological naturalism as a useful model to employ, but one which only exists as a pragmatic strategy, not as a statement of how the universe actually operates. We would know it was inaccurate. As it is, we can say that the universe operates exactly as we would expect it to if MN was correct. The point at issue is whether it is irrational to not go beyond this and say that this means MN is correct.

But there's no reason imo to suppose that if God exists methodological naturalism must fail, nor to suppose that a working model is equivalent to an objectively true one. The whoe thing seems like a non-sequitir to me, and easily avoided by the theist because without teleology there's no evidence that the universe is rational, sure our explanations are, because we refuse any other kind. Until we've explained everything, and proven those explanations objectively true, there's not really any way to distinguish who's got the better argument.
I know which I prefer though.

I largely agree with you here, except I would say that the side that has the model that can theoretically be falsified, but which has not been despite innumerable observations, has the better argument than the side whose model is unfalsifiable.

Cito di Pense wrote:

shh wrote:But there's no reason imo to suppose that if God exists methodological naturalism must fail, nor to suppose that a working model is equivalent to an objectively true one.

That's a modern rewordinging of an ancient concept of God. There's no reason to believe the ancient concept is at all workable in any sense. Those people were very ignorant of a lot of things. The modern rewordinging is patches on legacy code.

Fair enough, but "objective truth" is just a legacy of the legacy code.
Why bother going beyond "this works, that doesn't, I prefer the one that works"?

The whole thing seems like a non-sequitir to me, and easily avoided by the theist because without teleology there's no evidence that the universe is rational, sure our explanations are, because we refuse any other kind.

Legacy code is almost always a non-sequitur masquerading as a precursor. Ad hoc is another term applied to it.

A rewordinging should actually attempt to improve upon what it is trying to restate.

And that's why "inter-subjective" should replace "objective".

Shrunk wrote:Just speaking for myself, what it seems to mean is that every observation we make is consistent with the assumptions of methodological naturalism (that there is no supernatural being influencing the universe.) So, for instance, we don't have to make allowances in scientific research to avoid measuring the occurence of supernatural events.

Theists say exactly the same thing, they just claim we don't need to avoid the supernatural part because science can't get at the supernatural.

As an example, suppose a team was investigating a new anti-cancer drug and obtained the following results: In the treatment group, 75% of patients got better. In the control group, 50% of patients got better, but in 25% an angel suddenly appeared in the room and shot rays out of its eyes that immediately caused the tumour to evaporate. If we want to answer the question as to whether the drug is effective, we have to eliminate those miracle cures from our statistical analysis. If we regularly encountered situations like this, we would still view methodological naturalism as a useful model to employ, but one which only exists as a pragmatic strategy, not as a statement of how the universe actually operates. We would know it was inaccurate. As it is, we can say that the universe operates exactly as we would expect it to if MN was correct. The point at issue is whether it is irrational to not go beyond this and say that this means MN is correct.

But we already know it's inaccurate, or at least the results we obtain from the method are, that's why we constantly refine them. MN is neither correct nor incorrect, it's a functioning method, what's more, it's not even necessary for science. If we were to find something that consistently suggested magic, would we refuse to accept it? Or would we just start calling it natural?

I largely agree with you here, except I would say that the side that has the model that can theoretically be falsified, but which has not been despite innumerable observations, has the better argument than the side whose model is unfalsifiable.

MN isn't a model though,it's a view on practice, and "the" model is falsified, constantly, and the more science we do, the more often it'll be falsified. C'est la vie, we don't know everything, so I don't think it's surprising that we find we don't know everything.
I think the only way we can accept the title of this thread as legitimate is to broaden the type of belief, and include pretty much all beliefs which aren't a matter of definition, or subjective in the individual sense.
I don't have a problem with that, but the majority of people I've mentioned it to think I'm insane to some degree or other, no-one's ever presented anything remotely like an argument against it though, only their personal convictions.

shh wrote:
I think the only way we can accept the title of this thread as legitimate is to broaden the type of belief, and include pretty much all beliefs which aren't a matter of definition, or subjective in the individual sense.
I don't have a problem with that, but the majority of people I've mentioned it to think I'm insane to some degree or other, no-one's ever presented anything remotely like an argument against it though, only their personal convictions.

What I take you to mean by "inter-subjective" is that the current version is not ever the purview of only a single "mind".

Denying the purely subjective is always a group effort, but inter-subjectivity sometimes leads to the acceptance of popular delusions. So, the facts of science are more than just a "popular delusion". To say that this is not an "objective fact", the purview of a single mind, does not seem to me to be saying much, given the caveats. There are some facts you cannot wish away, and calling that "intersubjective" does not distinguish the result from what happens in popular delusions. Perfect accuracy in statements is not even within the purview of the authoritative single mind, who is merely bullshitting. The need to describe it with perfect accuracy is a strawman.

@susu.exp:-

More traits then theism requires.

This is indeed a difficulty, because some theologians would argue that all, some, or "qualified" omni's. For example, God is omnipotent, but does not break his own physical laws. Others say, god breaks laws all the time when he performs miracles. God, as a concept is a moving target, depending on who you talk to. I was simply enumerating the common concepts that some folks have regarding the nature of god [or at least, what they believe to be the nature of god, and his properties. ] I used David Ramsey Steele's "God's Ten Qualities" in his book "ATHEISM EXPLAINED" (2008:p4).

There´s a contradiction here. If the universe was as you described it with a natural god, miracles - as you point out - would be natural. So finding that miracles have natural causes does not contradict this. "Miracles", like the "Spuernatural" are ill-defined.

Sorry, I am tying myself in knots here. By MY definition [and opinion] a god [natural or otherwise] is just not credible and lacks evidentiary support. And the 4 omni's are inconsistent, especially when we combine any two of them. Like combining omniscience with omnibenevolence. If god is aware of all space-time, then he creates us with properties that makes us do evil, and knows this in advance.

That´s bollocks. Thor`s hammer does not cause lightning. Thor is a naturalistic deity. It´s some guy, who produces some tangible effect using a big hammer and the hammer hypothesis is falsifiable and has been.

No mate, that's Bollocks. Thor is a made-up person, who Nordic folks thought was a natural deity. Big difference. Same is true [of course] about the Abrahamic Cod.

shh wrote:-

If science were the quest for objectivity, not only would it be flawed, it would be doomed. Unless you've some strange idiosyncratic definition of the word objective, there's simply no possibility of objectivity. "Objective" means "without subjective elements", literally, it requires a point of view without a viewer. No matter how many points of view you add, you can never have a point f view divorced from those whose point of view it is.

Splitting hairs here I think. Objective means "the same for all observers". If I have a bag of lollies, and we all take turns to count how many lollies are in the bag, and we agree, then we have "objectivity". If one person believes that there are more or less lollies in the bag than all the others, then that is subjective. Of course, we could ALL be deluded about the number of lollies in the bag, depending on our subjective opinion. That is a possibility of course, but not a realistic one, especially when we are trained to look at facts with the least bias as possible. Note that I am not invoking some absolutist notion of the perfect observer, or ignoring frames of reference or unconscious bias. These problems of course exist, and can often be [at least partly] compensated for.

To be sure, are world views do filter our observations to some extent. Is light a particle, or a wave? You can do experiments that demonstrate either. But perhaps this may be a "brute fact", and light may be both a particle and a wave at the same time. [A "wavicle"]. But it is possible to be less of a prostitute or slave of our paradigms, and the scientific method helps us to get some independence from our paradigms. If a scientist really respects evidence, then any paradigm that he holds must be subject to that evidence. Further, a scientist can disbelieve a paradigm, and yet accumulate evidence for a competing paradigm. To be sure, it is not unknown for some scientists to ignore evidence in favour of their favourite paradigm, but that I would argue, is when they depart from the scientific method. An extreme case here is Michael Behe seeing intelligent design in everything instead of accepting that ID is non-parsimonious with the evidence. In other words, natural selection is giving the appearance or illusion of Intelligent design.

Cito di Pense wrote:What I take you to mean by "inter-subjective" is that the current version is not ever the purview of only a single "mind

More that if more than one mind checks they'll get the same result.

Denying the purely subjective is always a group effort, but inter-subjectivity sometimes leads to the acceptance of popular delusions.

I think you're begging the question here.
WAsn't phlogiston scientific at one point? I think we're guaranteed that any scientific notion will eventually be superseded, I wouldn't call it "popular delusion", because of the negative connotations, and obviously the reasons for it's popularity are of a different kind to the reasons for say Brittney Spears popularity, but it's not too far off.

So, the facts of science are more than just a "popular delusion".

So long as we know that they're also less than absolute truths. And aren't all facts more than popular delusion?

To say that this is not an "objective fact", the purview of a single mind, does not seem to me to be saying much, given the caveats.

Fair enough, but once you have the caveats you may as well be saying, "this is an objective truth, only it isn't. I don't see the sense in that, inter-subjective contains the caveats, and doesn't require we contradict ourselves.
Actually, couldn't we just say "this is scientific" and dispose of the whole issue?

There are some facts you cannot wish away, and calling that "intersubjective" does not distinguish the result from what happens in popular delusions.

Fair enough, as far as it goes, but it doesn't go very far imo. Why should it be distinguished, other than saying "this isn't just some shit someone made up"?
I'm not suggesting we wish away anything here, I'm suggesting we don't wish things into existence either.

Perfect accuracy in statements is not even within the purview of the authoritative single mind, who is merely bullshitting. The need to describe it with perfect accuracy is a strawman.

So why claim we've described something with perfect accuracy?
I don't think we're actually disagreeing about science here tbh, only about what people should or shouldn't claim science can do. Science can't be objective, you yourself say that the need for perfect accuracy isn't even a psrt of science, so why not just admit science isn't perfectly accurate?

DarwinsBulldog wrote:Splitting hairs here I think.

Trying to be as accurate as possible.

Objective means "the same for all observers"

No,"universal" means the same for everyone. Objective means "lacking subjectivity". The words subjective and objective are antonyms, there is no subjective view that is objective, that's a contradiction in terms.

If I have a bag of lollies, and we all take turns to count how many lollies are in the bag, and we agree, then we have "objectivity". If one person believes that there are more or less lollies in the bag than all the others, then that is subjective.

According to your definition if one person disagrees it's no longer objective.

Of course, we could ALL be deluded about the number of lollies in the bag, depending on our subjective opinion. That is a possibility of course, but not a realistic one, especially when we are trained to look at facts with the least bias as possible. Note that I am not invoking some absolutist notion of the perfect observer, or ignoring frames of reference or unconscious bias. These problems of course exist, and can often be [at least partly] compensated for.

I don't disagree with this, but it contradicts your entire argument. If you admit that every observer could be biased, then objective means nothing more than "agreed on", unless you can prove, in the strong sense, that no one has any bias, of any kind. That's not possible, so again, you can never claim that anything is objective, unless you reduce objective to meaning agreed on, I for one don't accept that science is merely agreed on.

To be sure, are world views do filter our observations to some extent. Is light a particle, or a wave? You can do experiments that demonstrate either. But perhaps this may be a "brute fact", and light may be both a particle and a wave at the same time. [A "wavicle"]. But it is possible to be less of a prostitute or slave of our paradigms, and the scientific method helps us to get some independence from our paradigms. If a scientist really respects evidence, then any paradigm that he holds must be subject to that evidence. Further, a scientist can disbelieve a paradigm, and yet accumulate evidence for a competing paradigm. To be sure, it is not unknown for some scientists to ignore evidence in favour of their favourite paradigm, but that I would argue, is when they depart from the scientific method. An extreme case here is Michael Behe seeing intelligent design in everything instead of accepting that ID is non-parsimonious with the evidence. In other words, natural selection is giving the appearance or illusion of Intelligent design.

I'm not talking about people who depart from the scientific method though, I'm talking about what's possible when it's adhered to, in fact, I'm talking about science done so well that it's probably never actually done this well in fact.
The problem isn't with science, the problem is with humans, knowledge, and perspective. And it's only a problem for those who would claim science can give us objective information, it has no bearing at all on anyone else, and I don't know of any scientist who'd claim that science is objective in the strong sense, not since before Hume.
Either you're redefining objective (which it seems you are) or you're disagreeing with how science has been practiced for the last century. The entire point of things like falsification is that we can't say that any X is objective, or true, or verified, we can only say it's falsifiable and has not been falsified, or other similar things.

shh wrote:

Perfect accuracy in statements is not even within the purview of the authoritative single mind, who is merely bullshitting. The need to describe it with perfect accuracy is a strawman.

So why claim we've described something with perfect accuracy?
I don't think we're actually disagreeing about science here tbh, only about what people should or shouldn't claim science can do. Science can't be objective, you yourself say that the need for perfect accuracy isn't even a psrt of science, so why not just admit science isn't perfectly accurate?

I don't think we're disagreeing, either. Somehow, science inspires some people to make exorbitant statements about what it is or does. Often, such people are looking for a replacement for their former religion. It's what goes on between the ears that inspires people to do this. There's nothing in thinking scientifically that requires this.

There is a point I sometimes like to make about the way scientific theories organize our statements about the world, and just how much we should consider some of these statements to be mutable. I'm talking about notions such as "life forms evolve by natural selection", and what that says about ecosystems as thermodynamic open systems. Why waste time thinking that the formalism of "open systems" and the idea of a "thermodynamic system" is "tentative" when we are not talking about "the universe as a whole"? "Evolution" and "system" are scientific concepts that completely constrain their purviews, when we are not talking about "the universe as a whole". It means we've already decided on a topic of conversation.

"The universe as a whole" is a weird-ass philosophical concept. The concept of an isolated thermodynamic system or "ideal" substances are idealisations, which we approximate in engineering applications, and what we measure are the deviations from ideality and isolation.

shh wrote:

There are some facts you cannot wish away, and calling that "intersubjective" does not distinguish the result from what happens in popular delusions.

Fair enough, as far as it goes, but it doesn't go very far imo. Why should it be distinguished, other than saying "this isn't just some shit someone made up"?
I'm not suggesting we wish away anything here, I'm suggesting we don't wish things into existence either.

Well, we do strive for precision in our language. The examples I gave bear little resemblance to "just some shit that someone made up". That they are not of "universal applicability" is, as I said, only to say we will not toss them out. We continue to use classical mechanics for most applications, even though we have quantum mechanics and relativistic physics. Until we evolve into another sort of being, we will never stop thinking in these terms, and maybe not even then.

shh wrote:WAsn't phlogiston scientific at one point? I think we're guaranteed that any scientific notion will eventually be superseded, I wouldn't call it "popular delusion", because of the negative connotations, and obviously the reasons for it's popularity are of a different kind to the reasons for say Brittney Spears popularity, but it's not too far off.

Yes, phlogiston was a "scientific" concept at one time, maybe in the same sense that "consciousness" is today. They are just words associated with some vague verbiage. Now that "oxygen" is a recognised element, we don't need phlogiston. The periodic table is not going to go out of style, as far as chemistry is concerned. Far from supplanting it, the advent of quantum mechanics only told us how much there is in the periodic table.

shh wrote:

So, the facts of science are more than just a "popular delusion".

So long as we know that they're also less than absolute truths. And aren't all facts more than popular delusion?

To say that this is not an "objective fact", the purview of a single mind, does not seem to me to be saying much, given the caveats.

Fair enough, but once you have the caveats you may as well be saying, "this is an objective truth, only it isn't. I don't see the sense in that, inter-subjective contains the caveats, and doesn't require we contradict ourselves.
Actually, couldn't we just say "this is scientific" and dispose of the whole issue?

We don't strive to "dispose of the whole issue". We strive to become more precise in our descriptions. Unified theories (like putting together quantum mechanics and gravitation) are projects both to streamline calculations and to satisfy the impulse for elegance in theory. We want a fundamental physics theory that seems as "final" as evolution or macroscopic thermo. Of course, evolution and thermo will need to be consistent with it, whatever it turns out to be. What "whole issue" would we even dispose of in a "unified theory"? "Objective fact" is just the sort of exorbitant terminology that, if you poke it a little, just turns out to be semantics. It's already about "mind" from a philosophical point of view.

shh wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:What I take you to mean by "inter-subjective" is that the current version is not ever the purview of only a single "mind

More that if more than one mind checks they'll get the same result.

Yes, quite! And we want a precise and unambiguous account of what the words "the same result" is. We do this with statistics and probability. And it doesn't tell you a damn thing about "mind". You can't have relativism without "minds", so relativism is not about science, it's about the philosophy of "minds".

Cito di Pense wrote:I don't think we're disagreeing, either. Somehow, science inspires some people to make exorbitant statements about what it is or does. Often, such people are looking for a replacement for their former religion. It's what goes on between the ears that inspires people to do this. There's nothing in thinking scientifically that requires this.

Yup, people don't go from an extreme to a moderate view often, they tend to go from one view to an opposite, of the same extremity. So a creationist will end up being sucked into fanatical scientism. I was never particularly religious, and always taught that science was interesting, worthwhile, etc. I see no need to change this view, science remains interesting and worthwhile, and above all useful, religion is still not very important, though worth having some understanding of, in the same way that it's worth having an understanding of literature. If you want.
Neither is, or can be, a panacea. There is no such thing.

There is a point I sometimes like to make about the way scientific theories organize our statements about the world, and just how much we should consider some of these statements to be mutable. I'm talking about notions such as "life forms evolve by natural selection", and what that says about ecosystems as thermodynamic open systems. Why waste time thinking that the formalism of "open systems" and the idea of a "thermodynamic system" is "tentative" when we are not talking about "the universe as a whole"? "Evolution" and "system" are scientific concepts that completely constrain their purviews, when we are not talking about "the universe as a whole". It means we've already decided on a topic of conversation.

Well fucking put.

"The universe as a whole" is a weird-ass philosophical concept. The concept of an isolated thermodynamic system or "ideal" substances are idealisations, which we approximate in engineering applications, and what we measure are the deviations from ideality and isolation.

I get the feeling I'm going to be repeating the above sentiment a lot here.

Well, we do strive for precision in our language. The examples I gave bear little resemblance to "just some shit that someone made up". That they are not of "universal applicability" is, as I said, only to say we will not toss them out. We continue to use classical mechanics for most applications, even though we have quantum mechanics and relativistic physics. Until we evolve into another sort of being, we will never stop thinking in these terms, and maybe not even then.

Nor should we. We just shouldn't claim we're talking about the truth, or the objective truth, or the magic tooth fairy oh my goodness awesomeness truth. I'm going to have to stop posting in threads you're in, or I'm just gonna turn into a fanboi. Only a short step up from a skaterboi, and I've no time for emo's.

Yes, phlogiston was a "scientific" concept at one time, maybe in the same sense that "consciousness" is today. They are just words associated with some vague verbiage. Now that "oxygen" is a recognised element, we don't need phlogiston. The periodic table is not going to go out of style, as far as chemistry is concerned. Far from supplanting it, the advent of quantum mechanics only told us how much there is in the periodic table.

Fair enough.

We don't strive to "dispose of the whole issue". We strive to become more precise in our descriptions. Unified theories (like putting together quantum mechanics and gravitation) are projects both to streamline calculations and to satisfy the impulse for elegance in theory. We want a fundamental physics theory that seems as "final" as evolution or macroscopic thermo. Of course, evolution and thermo will need to be consistent with it, whatever it turns out to be. What "whole issue" would we even dispose of in a "unified theory"? "Objective fact" is just the sort of exorbitant terminology that, if you poke it a little, just turns out to be semantics. It's already about "mind" from a philosophical point of view.

Again, fair enough, I just like for our semantics to be straight. Some people say "that's just semantics" I say, "yes, does that mean you're ok with being wrong about semantics?" It is just semantics, why not just get the semantics right?

Yes, quite! And we want a precise and unambiguous account of what the words "the same result" is. We do this with statistics and probability. And it doesn't tell you a damn thing about "mind". You can't have relativism without "minds", so relativism is not about science, it's about the philosophy of "minds".

Sure, but we're not debating the results here are we? We're debating whether or not those results are objective, and objective is not a scientific term, it's a philosophical one, frankly, if we were debating science, "we" wouldn't be debating at all, I'm not, nor have ever claimed to be, a scientist. Any muthafucka can be a philosopher, you just have to know some philosophy, and I do.
Human knowledge can never be objective, and anyone who understands the term and it's history knows this.
That doesn't alter the value of science, in the slightest, and I would never claim otherwise, it's those who claim that science can be objective who've fucked up, because they've strayed into philosophy, and don't know what the words they mean use. Does it matter? Not to how science operates, or what science is worth, but it does matter to the degree that it's the same sort of bull that religious people talk about when they propose a first cause. In fact that's a very apt comparison, the logic is precisely the same, science approaches objectivity because they can't think what else it could be doing, there must be a first cause because they can't think what else there could be.
The only part they're right about is that they can't think beyond that point. That just means that they can't think beyond that point, it means nothing else.
I don't need these delusions of grandeur, I'm happy to admit I can't think beyond a certain point, simply because I can't think beyond that point, I see no reason to draw conclusions about the universe just because my thinking is limited, and I see no reason to accept anyone else's conclusions on that basis either.
When someone tells you that science is moving towards truth, or approximates objectivity, they take on the burden of proving that truth exists and that objectivity is possible, we know that both of these are wrong, simply because after centuries of trying, those who wanted to reach truth, and wanted objectivity, figured out it wasn't possible. Because they're saying what they wanted to do is in fact impossible, and because I've followed the arguments, I'm willing to agree, anyone who wants to disagree has a shitload of work to do. I only insist that they do this work if they want to be taken seriously in their claims, I do not insist that they do this work, and I'd be delighted if they stopped making these claims, but, to allude to another thread, they insist we have tails.
It's simply not good enough to say "I deny, and contradict, the entire history of philosophy on the basis of a hunch". It's fine to say "I don't really give a shit about philosophy".
Those who claim science is objective are denying and contradicting the history of philosophy, they're not abandoning philosophy, they're claiming it says something it doesn't, or that it doesn't say something it does. Bullshit is not acceptable.

shh wrote:When someone tells you that science is moving towards truth, or approximates objectivity, they take on the burden of proving that truth exists and that objectivity is possible, we know that both of these are wrong, simply because after centuries of trying, those who wanted to reach truth, and wanted objectivity, figured out it wasn't possible. Because they're saying what they wanted to do is in fact impossible, and because I've followed the arguments, I'm willing to agree, anyone who wants to disagree has a shitload of work to do. I only insist that they do this work if they want to be taken seriously in their claims, I do not insist that they do this work, and I'd be delighted if they stopped making these claims, but, to allude to another thread, they insist we have tails.

Well, you can ponder for yourself whether there is confusion about whether we are referring to the methodology or the data. When I refer to "the periodic table", I mean to say that I could explain atomic theory down to the level of the periodic table to a symbol manipulating alien intelligence. Whatever the standard model of particle physics becomes, chemistry will depend on the information that structures the periodic table. We don't have to use the word "objective" if that seems like a "magic word" to you. That's more or less what it means to me. Likewise for mathematical expressions of the evolution of dynamical systems, all done with various equivalent formulations of classical mechanics. Likewise with various equivalent mathematical expressions for the probabilities of the occurrence of statistical events. The point I made is that the concepts of dynamical evolution, statistical probability, and atomic theory will work for those alien symbol manipulators just as they do for us in predicting the outcomes of experiments. Experimentation is a methodology.

If someone tries to tell me "science is moving toward truth", I would try to point out these or similar matters, and try to make "objectivity" a bit less of a "magic word". What I think you are talking about is explaining an alternate methodology to someone who continues to apply magical thinking to the world. Dennett has some interesting things to say about the differences between "real magic" and "stage magic" (or conjuring tricks). "Real magic" is an oxymoron, just like "scientific truth". The two words simply do not belong together, and we are in agreement on that. It is natural language that is at fault, not the language of mathematics. There is no ambiguity, for example, in the mathematical description of probability, or in classical dynamics of particles and systems. There are ways to obfuscate "entropy", but we're not impressed by obfuscation, are we? "Magic" is not really an "alternative methodology", is it? YK, in the sense of "alternative medicine"? There is just no such thing as "alternative spectroscopy"! One might say that this is an attempt to clarify "objectivity". One might say that "magic" is "alternative experimentation", and it depends on obfuscating its results, or that "paranormal" is an attempt to obfuscate the concept of "magic".

That people feel miffed when their pet theories are not universally accepted is not surprising. Scientists do get miffed, but it always shows up when they do it within their professional capacities.

shh wrote:I just like for our semantics to be straight. Some people say "that's just semantics" I say, "yes, does that mean you're ok with being wrong about semantics?" It is just semantics, why not just get the semantics right?

The notion of semantics is tested whenever we try to communicate with an organism (evolved dynamical system) that is not human. So far we don't have a big enough sample space really to know what we are talking about. It's quite likely we never will, and so semantics will be the touchstone of relativism for the forseeable future. Sadly, for the time being, we have no means of "getting the semantics right". Maybe with mathematics, which is how scientists communicate when they "care enough to send the very best". There are people who do not understand scientific theory, or mathematics, yet think they understand something called "philosophy", but they are not my concern. When they understand both, we can have a conversation.

Here's an example: Gunplay. Designing a gun is all about chemistry, with a little bit of mechanical engineering to link the trigger to the firing pin. Gas dynamics, chemistry of gunpowder, ballistics (and supersonic flight through the atmosphere). Strength of materials (for the firing chamber and so on). Even your kevlar vest, all about "better living through chemistry"!

Chrisw wrote:One of the motivations for pragmatism is the attempt to demystify concepts like truth and knowledge and put them on a thoroughly naturalistic basis. It's not a coincidence that pragmatism emerged after the discovery of the theory of evolution, the final clinching evidence for the fact that humans are just another species of animal. We aren't little gods or immaterial minds and our ways of thinking stand as much in need of naturalistic explanation as any other type of animal behaviour.

Unfortunately I have looked myself in my study to grade student papers this week, and cannot keep up with the discussions for the moment.

shh wrote:Those who claim science is objective are denying and contradicting the history of philosophy, they're not abandoning philosophy, they're claiming it says something it doesn't, or that it doesn't say something it does. Bullshit is not acceptable.

Well, wibbling is not acceptable, either, outside some circles. Typically, philosophers say, "Philosophy says this", and of course, they're never actually wrong when they say so, as long as they can cite some philosopher who said what they say philosophy says.

On the other hand, science just says "this" or "(we find) this", and describe an experiment that finds this. The results may be shown to be in error, which is, I guess, what people who wibble about falsification are after.

Now, saying "I simply can't think beyond this point" seems to imply that one has identified the point. But since all one has done is to name the point about which one has thought, of course one is not going beyond that point. Enough said. The less said the better, if we want to follow Wittgenstein.

Sorry Cito, sort of in the same position as Darwinsbulldog atm, will get back to this asap.
Meanwhile both you should go have a look at the logo thread, input appreciated.

Cito di Pense wrote:Well, you can ponder for yourself whether there is confusion about whether we are referring to the methodology or the data. When I refer to "the periodic table", I mean to say that I could explain atomic theory down to the level of the periodic table to a symbol manipulating alien intelligence. Whatever the standard model of particle physics becomes, chemistry will depend on the information that structures the periodic table. We don't have to use the word "objective" if that seems like a "magic word" to you. That's more or less what it means to me. Likewise for mathematical expressions of the evolution of dynamical systems, all done with various equivalent formulations of classical mechanics. Likewise with various equivalent mathematical expressions for the probabilities of the occurrence of statistical events. The point I made is that the concepts of dynamical evolution, statistical probability, and atomic theory will work for those alien symbol manipulators just as they do for us in predicting the outcomes of experiments. Experimentation is a methodology.

Ok, I have no problem with what you're saying here, but that's exactly the point.
Just like chemists will continue to use the periodic table, and mathematicians will continue to use the various forms of mathematics, architects will continue to use Euclidean geometry.
No architect will think I'm somehow dissing architecture or Euclidean geometry when I say Euclidean geometry's not true though, no-one familiar with Euclidean geometry will claim it's true, or objective in the first place, it's a well proved fact that Euclidean geometry is neither true nor objective. That's not the same as saying it's not worthwhile, not useful etc. etc.
So what do can we think when someone starts to claim that it is true, or objective? Only that this person is being dogmatic, and ignorant about it.
Do we really want to allow this to become how scientists think or behave about science?
Religious people often claim that science is "just another faith", and no-one around here reacts well to that claim, nor should they, but they should take the risk of science becoming just another faith seriously, because it is possible, and the first step on that road is the claim that science is true, or objective.
When I see people making arguments that science is true or objective, I don't see people educating their listeners into science, I see them indoctrinating others into their faith.
Saying "it's a methodology" doesn't alleviate this, because even if we tried, we simply couldn't have every person in the world become a scientist, and have some kind of esoteric understanding of what's "really" meant when a scientist says "objective" or "true", in my experience, people who make those claims don't understand exactly what they mean, they don't "really" mean anything beyond "this is my view, and it's The Right One". That's anti-science imo, it's subtle, certainly far more subtle than something like Creationism, but that makes it more effectively anti-scientific, not less anti-scientific.

If someone tries to tell me "science is moving toward truth", I would try to point out these or similar matters, and try to make "objectivity" a bit less of a "magic word". What I think you are talking about is explaining an alternate methodology to someone who continues to apply magical thinking to the world. Dennett has some interesting things to say about the differences between "real magic" and "stage magic" (or conjuring tricks). "Real magic" is an oxymoron, just like "scientific truth". The two words simply do not belong together, and we are in agreement on that. It is natural language that is at fault, not the language of mathematics. There is no ambiguity, for example, in the mathematical description of probability, or in classical dynamics of particles and systems. There are ways to obfuscate "entropy", but we're not impressed by obfuscation, are we? "Magic" is not really an "alternative methodology", is it? YK, in the sense of "alternative medicine"? There is just no such thing as "alternative spectroscopy"! One might say that this is an attempt to clarify "objectivity". One might say that "magic" is "alternative experimentation", and it depends on obfuscating its results, or that "paranormal" is an attempt to obfuscate the concept of "magic".

No we're not impressed by obfuscation, and that's why I think we should be as clear as possible, science isn't objective, it's not true, it's not even concerned with these things, they're obsolete concepts grounded in mystical magical nonsense. We have other words that work better, and are more apt, like inter-subjective, and if inter-subjective leaves us with the possibility that a scientific idea can be wrong, a delusion, that's not a weakness, scientific ideas can be wrong, can be delusions, and we'd be well advised to remember the fact.
It might make our rhetoric weaker, but we're no more impressed by rhetoric than we are by obfuscation are we?

That people feel miffed when their pet theories are not universally accepted is not surprising. Scientists do get miffed, but it always shows up when they do it within their professional capacities.

But who could tell? We have o accept the fact that the vast majority of people aren't scientists, and as science progresses, fewer and fewer are going to be scientists with the right kind of specialization. If we allow this idea that science is true, or objective, we run the risk that those who aren't part of the relevant scientific sub-community are going to get back into that old time religion, just it'll be called science next time. Why allow the risk for the sake of using a few words that we know are only of rhetorical value anyway?

The notion of semantics is tested whenever we try to communicate with an organism (evolved dynamical system) that is not human.

It's tested when we talk to anyone. At the very least some grasp of semantics, and logic can allow us to identify when we don't understand something, and that's all that's needed.
Why worry about life forms we've not yet encountered? We have enough semantic difficulties with other humans, but for the most part they rely on other humans not being able to identify things that they don't understand, get rid of that, and many of our problems go away. Is it easy to get rid of it? I'd doubt it very much. Is it possible? Definitely, the major difficulty is in getting people to bother doing it. Those of us who want to foster a more rational skeptical outlook, should undertake to do it ourselves though.

So far we don't have a big enough sample space really to know what we are talking about. It's quite likely we never will, and so semantics will be the touchstone of relativism for the forseeable future. Sadly, for the time being, we have no means of "getting the semantics right". Maybe with mathematics, which is how scientists communicate when they "care enough to send the very best".

I don't agree, I think some of us just have a conviction we can't get the semantics right. I don't see any evidence to support this view. Perfect communication is impossible, but unnecessary, we just need to refrain from saying more than we can evidence, and that only takes a small amount of effort.

There are people who do not understand scientific theory, or mathematics, yet think they understand something called "philosophy", but they are not my concern. When they understand both, we can have a conversation.

I don't see any reason they should understand these beyond having some familiarity, nor do I see why these are necessary to do anything useful.
This conversation requires little understanding of either for example, I'm neither a mathematician nor a scientist, I don't see that I'm failing to hold up my end of the conversation either though.

Here's an example: Gunplay. Designing a gun is all about chemistry, with a little bit of mechanical engineering to link the trigger to the firing pin. Gas dynamics, chemistry of gunpowder, ballistics (and supersonic flight through the atmosphere). Strength of materials (for the firing chamber and so on). Even your kevlar vest, all about "better living through chemistry"!

What's this an example of though? That we can produce guns every time? Great, and I'm not being dismissive there, but do you really think every problem humans face is solvable in the same way producing a given mechanism is? I don't. Some, many even, may be completely insoluble, but again, we're not interested in magic are we? Do we need perfection? I don't think so, we can improve situations even if we're incapable of perfect solutions, I don't see that a problem's being difficult or impossible to approach with science means it should be ignored, or dismissed, that's just more magical thinking from my point of view.

Chrisw wrote:One of the motivations for pragmatism is the attempt to demystify concepts like truth and knowledge and put them on a thoroughly naturalistic basis. It's not a coincidence that pragmatism emerged after the discovery of the theory of evolution, the final clinching evidence for the fact that humans are just another species of animal. We aren't little gods or immaterial minds and our ways of thinking stand as much in need of naturalistic explanation as any other type of animal behaviour.

Replace "naturalistic" with "effective" there and I agree completely. Saying "we need solutions" is scientific, saying "we need solutions that fit our preconceptions" is religion.

shh wrote:Those of us who want to foster a more rational skeptical outlook, should undertake to do it ourselves though.

Perfect communication is impossible, but unnecessary, we just need to refrain from saying more than we can evidence, and that only takes a small amount of effort.

Given a mission whose success is considered contingent upon some practices, yes, we should. We will then be careful, of course, not to formulate those practices by saying more than we can evidence.

Simply declare the aims of fostering what you call "a more rational skeptical outlook". If you personally feel that talking about "evolution" or "the periodic table" in a particular way interferes with these aims, boiled down to the epithet that we are "saying more than we can evidence", it is a viewpoint I have encountered before from philosophy. I am sure there is a famous philosopher somewhere who is considered to be the originator of the concept.

Outside of philosophy, there is not some sort of contest in progress to lay claim to the title of being "the most rational" we can be. If it is considered more rational "not to say more than we can evidence", it is considered so in a particular school of philosophy. I'm guessing "empiricism".

Science, of course, is not strictly bound to empiricism, since theoreticians follow their intuitions somewhere on the way to formulating a model. The periodic table existed before quantum mechanics was developed. Any formulation of quantum mechanics that forced us to bin the periodic table would have had to be rejected. We just never hear about the formulations that were rejected on that basis. Formulations of relativity that forced us to bin classical mechanics would also have failed. Do you think I'm saying more than I can evidence, here?

Not everyone is equally-stirred by contemplating evidence, as we have seen. Not all religious philosophies are vulnerable to inspecting the evidence, and so there is this approach of questioning the concept of "objective truth" to see whether or under what circumstances the term "objective truth" can communicate anything inter-subjectively. I agree that residual notions of the content of this term cause problems in philosophical discussions.

The aim of a scientific model is not first to communicate its content intersubjectively, e.g. as "truth", but to predict the results of experiments. We know this because many scientific models are incomprehensible to anyone lacking training in mathematics. Non-scientists engaging in rhetorical excess on the internet are not really my concern, and for the most part, I refrain from arguing with them. That I engage with you is an indication of some respect for your position.

Well the respect is appreciated and returned, note that I don't argue with scientific claims, only philosophical ones disguised as scientific ones.
The problem I have is simply that these are claims about science not being made by scientists, with the intent to proseletize people from one non-scientific view, to another, but disguised, non-scientific view.
Wolves in sheep's clothing, or maybe more properly sheep in wolf's clothing.

It is my subjective position, that this thread needs to be proded back to life.

Definition of philosophy:
the rational*** investigation of the truths* and principles of being, knowledge**, or conduct.
Definition of science:
knowledge**, as of facts or principles; knowledge** gained by systematic study

*a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like: mathematical truths.
**acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation; general erudition: knowledge of many things.
***endowed with the faculty of reason****
****the power of intelligent and dispassionate thought, or of conduct influenced by such thought.

Personally I do not care about philosophy as a field. It is filled with nonsense. Then again looking at the definitions above there seems to be something there.

shh wrote: When the walrus' start to make claims about their ability to perceive things without a perspective, I'll start arguing with them, until then I'll live and let die.

What if the "perspective" is merely a desire to know?

Darwinsbulldog: Splitting hairs here I think. Objective means "the same for all observers". If I have a bag of lollies, and we all take turns to count how many lollies are in the bag, and we agree, then we have "objectivity". If one person believes that there are more or less lollies in the bag than all the others, then that is subjective. Of course, we could ALL be deluded about the number of lollies in the bag, depending on our subjective opinion.

Lets restructure this a tad. There are 3 lollies in the bag. What sort of subjectivity can be introduced into such a simple act of observation (how many lollies are in the bag)? If a person is asked to observe how many lollies are in the bag, and they answer 3, is the answer perfect - absolutely correct - dare I say objective answer?

Is stating that no one can be anything but subjective an objective observation, or is it a subjective statement?

dirtnapper wrote:It is my subjective position, that this thread needs to be proded back to life.

Definition of philosophy:
the rational*** investigation of the truths* and principles of being, knowledge**, or conduct.
Definition of science:
knowledge**, as of facts or principles; knowledge** gained by systematic study

*a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like: mathematical truths.
**acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation; general erudition: knowledge of many things.
***endowed with the faculty of reason****
****the power of intelligent and dispassionate thought, or of conduct influenced by such thought.

Personally I do not care about philosophy as a field. It is filled with nonsense. Then again looking at the definitions above there seems to be something there.

I'd say philosophy is the study and assessment of how we think about things, if and when we're lucky that includes opening up new ways.
I don't buy "truth" or "knowledge" outside defined axiomatic systems. (ie; "mathematical truths" are statements which are consistent with mathematical axioms, and only with the axioms of the particular mathematics being dealt with, this isn't truth in the normative sense)
Philosophy is full of bullshit, the thing is it's often philosophers trying to justify bullshit tonnes of people believe in, without justification. Most of the bullshit in philosophy is everywhere else too, but you can't ignore it in philosophy. You have to make up some more bullshit as an excuse to just ignore it first.

What if the "perspective" is merely a desire to know?

How could it be? Being a perspective requires sensory organs and stuff. A desire to know requires a very complex brain, along with a few assumptions about knowledge.

Lets restructure this a tad. There are 3 lollies in the bag. What sort of subjectivity can be introduced into such a simple act of observation (how many lollies are in the bag)? If a person is asked to observe how many lollies are in the bag, and they answer 3, is the answer perfect - absolutely correct - dare I say objective answer?

The question here isn't about whether or not your view and the other person's match, the question is how do we know we are observing reality? The answer is we can't.
That's not a problem, it's just theology failing.

Is stating that no one can be anything but subjective an objective observation, or is it a subjective statement?

You can't have an objective observation, it's a contradiction in terms.
It's a subjective statement, more specifically it's relative. You're a subject, you might be able to stop being a subject, but you won't be observing much afterwards.
(typo edit)

shh wrote:

dirtnapper wrote:It is my subjective position, that this thread needs to be proded back to life.

Definition of philosophy:
the rational*** investigation of the truths* and principles of being, knowledge**, or conduct.
Definition of science:
knowledge**, as of facts or principles; knowledge** gained by systematic study

*a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like: mathematical truths.
**acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation; general erudition: knowledge of many things.
***endowed with the faculty of reason****
****the power of intelligent and dispassionate thought, or of conduct influenced by such thought.

Personally I do not care about philosophy as a field. It is filled with nonsense. Then again looking at the definitions above there seems to be something there.

A) I'd say philosophy is the study and assessment of how we think about things, if and when we're lucky that includes opening up new ways.
I don't buy "truth" or "knowledge" outside defined axiomatic systems. (ie; "mathematical truths" are statements which are consistent with mathematical axioms, and only with the axioms of the particular mathematics being dealt with, this isn't truth in the normative sense)
Philosophy is full of bullshit, the thing is it's often philosophers trying to justify bullshit tonnes of people believe in, without justification. Most of the bullshit in philosophy is everywhere else too, but you can't ignore it in philosophy. You have to make up some more bullshit as an excuse to just ignore it first.

What if the "perspective" is merely a desire to know?

1) How could it be? Being a perspective requires sensory organs and stuff. A desire to know requires a very complex brain, along with a few assumptions about knowledge.

Lets restructure this a tad. There are 3 lollies in the bag. What sort of subjectivity can be introduced into such a simple act of observation (how many lollies are in the bag)? If a person is asked to observe how many lollies are in the bag, and they answer 3, is the answer perfect - absolutely correct - dare I say objective answer?

2) The question here isn't about whether or not your view and the other person's match, 3) the question is how do we know we are observing reality? The answer is we can't.
That's not a problem, it's just theology failing.

Is stating that no one can be anything but subjective an objective observation, or is it a subjective statement?

3) You can't have an objective observation, it's a contradiction in terms.
It's a subjective statement, more specifically it's relative. You're a subject, you might be able to stop being a subject, but you won't be observing much afterwards.
(typo edit)

A) epistemology

1) From my stand point I only assume: from years of accumulated evidence, that if one abstracts properly from reality, then one gets results.
Can you add any other assumptions?

2) I restructured the question. I do not care about consensus.

3) Here we must also deal with usage. I use the word objective / objectivity as a goal and a means of measurment.

So what you are getting at is an individual's ability to isolate variables blah blah blah to assertain facts in correct context. That is you are stating that people can not be accurate enough to eliminate doubt. Is this true?
I offer this: First you have no choice but to accept existence, or you could not question anything. So from the start you have an absolute. Without material there is no chance of abstraction - a mind capable of questioning. Such a conclusiion is 100% objective, in measuement, and the achiement of the goal of the highest degree of objectivity one can achieve.

Theology is irrelevant to me.

dirtnapper wrote:

A) epistemology

To a large degree, but broader.

1) From my stand point I only assume: from years of accumulated evidence, that if one abstracts properly from reality, then one gets results.
Can you add any other assumptions?

Yeah that everyone agrees on what reality is and that everyone agrees on what knowledge is, and that "gets results" is pretty empty.

2) I restructured the question. I do not care about consensus.

That restructure doesn't change anything. When you have an opinion on something, and someone else shares that opinion, what you have is consensus. It's a "perfect" "absolutely correct" because of two things: hyperbole and the fact you agree.

3) Here we must also deal with usage. I use the word objective / objectivity as a goal and a means of measurment.

What's the goal and how do you measure whatever you're measuring?

So what you are getting at is an individual's ability to isolate variables blah blah blah to assertain facts in correct context. That is you are stating that people can not be accurate enough to eliminate doubt. Is this true?

No, I'm saying objectivity is a non-concept.

I offer this: First you have no choice but to accept existence, or you could not question anything.

No that won't work, it's been tried, it's a sound byte. Metaphysics isn't convincing.

So from the start you have an absolute.

Even if I accepted it, it's not absolute, it's very much contextual.

Without material there is no chance of abstraction - a mind capable of questioning.

Prove it.

Such a conclusiion is 100% objective, in measuement, and the achiement of the goal of the highest degree of objectivity one can achieve.

"The highest degree of objectivity one can achieve" is an explicit admission that it's not objective.

Theology is irrelevant to me.

I beg to differ.

shh wrote:

dirtnapper wrote:
1) From my stand point I only assume: from years of accumulated evidence, that if one abstracts properly from reality, then one gets results.
Can you add any other assumptions?

A) Yeah that everyone agrees on what reality is B) and that everyone agrees on what knowledge is, and that "gets results" is pretty empty.

A, B) faulty assumptions.
results - like the computer you're are using to post in this forum.

shh wrote:

dirtnapper wrote:
2) I restructured the question. I do not care about consensus.

That restructure doesn't change anything. When you have an opinion on something, and someone else shares that opinion, what you have is consensus. It's a "perfect" "absolutely correct" because of two things: hyperbole and the fact you agree.

1.obvious and intentional exaggeration.
2.an extravagant statement or figure of speech not intended to be taken literally, as “to wait an eternity.”
No and No. It is simple easy to repeat experiment. Devoid of potentially distracting variables.

shh wrote:

dirtnapper wrote:3) Here we must also deal with usage. I use the word objective / objectivity as a goal and a means of measurment.

What's the goal and how do you measure whatever you're measuring?

The former is the goal, the latter is the measurement based on feedback - level of success.

shh wrote:

dirtnapper wrote:
I offer this: First you have no choice but to accept existence, or you could not question anything.

No that won't work, it's been tried, it's a sound byte. Metaphysics isn't convincing.

dirtnapper wrote:So from the start you have an absolute.

Even if I accepted it, it's not absolute, it's very much contextual.

We will just have to disagree here LOL.

shh wrote:

dirtnapper wrote:
Without material there is no chance of abstraction - a mind capable of questioning.

Prove it.

You must be joking. You understand that there can never the absence of material? An existent (material) complex enough to think is required. Without material you have an absolute (faulty as it is impossible) - nothing.

shh wrote:

dirtnapper wrote:Such a conclusiion is 100% objective, in measuement, and the achiement of the goal of the highest degree of objectivity one can achieve.

"The highest degree of objectivity one can achieve" is an explicit admission that it's not objective. 100% accuracy = pure objectivity, but you do not like the word and what it represents (certain usages)

shh wrote:

dirtnapper wrote:Theology is irrelevant to me.

I beg to differ.

Beg all you want ... LOL.