Thread: An Empirical View of Science Dogma

Originally Posted by Xei

There were a couple of statements you talked about in your post,

"observations are reality", and
"reality causes observations".

By conclusions, I mean deciding the truth or falsity of these statements. Your conclusions in particular were that the first was false and the second was true.

I wouldn't ever pretend to be able to prove that the second one is true, and the first one is false. My point is, was, and will remain, that these two views are fundamental beliefs (or assumptions), and it is beyond reasoning to decide which of them is true.

Originally Posted by Xei

You said from your perspective the two models aren't equivalent at all. But it shouldn't really depend on perspective if we're talking about the same thing. Did you mean "for my definition of equivalent, the two models aren't equivalent at all"..? If so this seems like a bit of an empty statement... definitions aren't really substantive opinions, they're just means of communicating the same idea.

I'm unsure if I understand your point correctly here, but using a definition implies believing it "true" in some sense. Therefore a definition must be an opinion (or belief, or something you have faith in, or an assumption, or whatever other word you might prefer).

Originally Posted by Voldmer

This is in reply to Stephs post (# 105)

I used a word derived from "objective" along with another word derived from "subjective". I assume most ordinary people would have understood it the way I meant it. That someone, deeply embedded in philosphical thought patterns, misunderstood it may be regrettable, but it's hardly something I should be worried about.

Yeah - that's been through now.

Originally Posted by Voldmer

About Link ... who is he, then? I don't think I've never come across him before, so how would I have any particular prior opinion of him? Is he a known case, always looking to barf torrents of philosophical rants wherever some unsuspecting person treads?

Well - you came across him in here enough to suspect, he will take you up on it, if you seemingly declare your/a philosophical standpoint.
Even if you didn't plan to embark on philosophy.
I could actually feel this little eureka moment of yours about having gained a sudden understanding, on where Xei might be coming from.
This then probably made all perfect sense - and you thought, the words coming to your mind for it should be adequate and understandable.
Sort of and up to a point.
But I too can see no reason for further worries in that department for now - except you want to expound on your personal meaning of objectivism - fresh as sprung forth from your brain. But - as you also already mentioned - you're basically on about statements one and two and hold no further connotations to the word?

Originally Posted by Voldmer

Quote Originally Posted by StephL
How do you personally arrive at your preferred worldview?

I have no idea. I am not a psychologist.

So you are saying, that arriving at your view is inherent in your psychological make-up and you can't reason it through?
Really? But why not abstract further and try to understand, what it is then?

Originally Posted by Voldmer

Quote Originally Posted by StephL
What do you mean by equivalent?

Having exactly the same consequences.

Okay - having the same consequences - so it follows, that you believe statement one has other consequences than statement two, because they are clearly not equivalent in your view?
Which differences in consequences are there?

Originally Posted by Voldmer

Quote Originally Posted by StephL View Post
What exactly sways you to disagree with statement one?

It doesn't fit with the view I believe in.

I suppose, statement one doesn't fit your belief, because you believe the two have different consequences.
How are they different in consequences?

Originally Posted by Voldmer

Quote Originally Posted by StephL
Are you of the beyonder persuasion?

I had to look that one up, but it wasn't in the dictionary, so I have no idea what you are talking about.

Uuups - mea culpa - been using it round here, but mostly in a context, that makes it clear (I hope).
What I am alluding to, when I use it, is "Beyond Dreaming" - I am sorry - this was intelligible of me.
Since I don't mean any single thing like shared dreaming - and don't want to use otherwise in some way loaded generalizations - I created my own little neologism, and forgot, that it was just that..redface.gif
I try again - do you believe in the spiritual, whatever that is - or do you rather not?

Originally Posted by Voldmer

Not physicists - how would there even be a purpose for physics, if observations are not caused by something?

You are the physicist - but for me - it's not so much about causes, but connections, relationships, patterns, predictions you can make from one set of observations towards another one. That is highly useful.
Somehow I am a bit at a loss how to transport what I mean and how that makes a difference, though.

Scientific knowledge is in my view always on the expansion and never arrives anywhere definite ever.
And that agrees with what you say Voldmer, too.
Like what you deem ultimate reality never being knowable in principle in it's entirety.
Arriving at such a humble conclusion - all you have reasonably left, is building models.
And once there are no differences in consequences, when working with this or that one - they are equivalent.

We just keep finding more and more patterns and rules that apply within our observations.
So we can gain insight, but not general overview.

A true causal relationship is incredibly hard to establish, as far as I am aware, there is a lot of attributing going on - methods, which you yourself frowned upon when talking about sympathizing with statisticians, who don't like how physics is done concerning extrapolation.
Straighten me up there anybody please, if need be - feeling a wee bit on thin ice.

Concerning what other physicists might think - I believe, yes, they would in majority agree with Xei - but not if you ambush people in the hallway, who usually don't philosophise.
Kidnap them, but nicely, some tasty food - give them this thread - and I'd like to see, what some say 30 physicists would come to conclude.

Originally Posted by Voldmer

I wouldn't ever pretend to be able to prove that the second one is true, and the first one is false. My point is, was, and will remain, that these two views are fundamental beliefs (or assumptions), and it is beyond reasoning to decide which of them is true.


...

Maybe we do agree after all.
There we are - it is beyond reason to decide, which is true - so concerning validity - they are equivalent - at least that seems to follow from it clearly.
So - then we are back to your personal belief as argument against statement one, but you hold this belief not because you have reasoned it through, but because it seems to spring naturally from your psychological make-up.
But that means, we come up against a wall concerning the ability to discuss these matters.
But then - it's actually fine - I can understand it - and I am taking back my "alien" as well in this light.



Veering steeply off to a side - just because it comes to my mind now:
Xei - or somebody else - help me!
I remember my husband (mathematician - not at home right now) running in a while ago, and declaring, that for the first time, causal relationships would now be accessible for real and for mathematics, because somebody came up with a new calculus, a Mr. Judea Pearl?
This did astonish me.
Do you know something of interest on this?

Originally Posted by StephL

So you are saying, that arriving at your view is inherent in your psychological make-up and you can't reason it through?
Really? But why not abstract further and try to understand, what it is then?

From my perspective it is intuition, and I am not at a point of self awareness, where I can fathom how my intuition arrives at its conclusions.

Originally Posted by StephL

Okay - having the same consequences - so it follows, that you believe statement one has other consequences than statement two, because they are clearly not equivalent in your view?
Which differences in consequences are there?

Well, for one, statement one has made believers out of Xei, and you it would appear, whereas statement two has made a believer out of me. There are of course many other differences, but one should suffice.

Originally Posted by StephL

I try again - do you believe in the spiritual, whatever that is - or do you rather not?

It's hard to assess with any meaningful accuracy, but I instinctively feel about 60% of me believes in the spiritual, and the remaning 40% does not.

Originally Posted by StephL

Arriving at such a humble conclusion - all you have reasonably left, is building models.
And once there are no differences in consequences, when working with this or that one - they are equivalent.

We just keep finding more and more patterns and rules that apply within our observations.
So we can gain insight, but not general overview.

Hopefully we are gradually modelling reality more closely.

Originally Posted by StephL

A true causal relationship is incredibly hard to establish, as far as I am aware, there is a lot of attributing going on - methods, which you yourself frowned upon when talking about sympathizing with statisticians, who don't like how physics is done concerning extrapolation.
Straighten me up there anybody please, if need be - feeling a wee bit on thin ice.

We probably will never find a true relationship (although some physicists would definitely beg to differ). But with any luck we will improve what we've got so far.

Originally Posted by StephL

Maybe we do agree after all.
There we are - it is beyond reason to decide, which is true - so concerning validity - they are equivalent - at least that seems to follow from it clearly.

No, I don't agree on the validity issue, since I believe one is right, and the other is wrong. You also shouldn't agree, since you believe it the other way around, apparently. But, I agree that your view and mine are on an equal footing in as much as they both are fundamental, and non-provable views.

Originally Posted by StephL

So - then we are back to your personal belief as argument against statement one, but you hold this belief not because you have reasoned it through, but because it seems to spring naturally from your psychological make-up.
But that means, we come up against a wall concerning the ability to discuss these matters.

Yup! And that was actually the case from the start, which is one reason why Linkzeldas continued writings seem pointless, from my perspective.