Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

 
Advanced search

1097030 Posts in 72563 Topics- by 19541 Members - Latest Member: Zorgnot
Jump to:  
Pages: 1 ... 57 58 59 60 61 [62] 63 64 65 66 67 ... 74   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: Religion Matters: Take 3  (Read 56031 times)
ronkny and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
drizabone
*
Online Online

Location: Central Coast, Australia
Joined: Jun 30, 2004
Posts: 2152

View Profile
« Reply #1220 on: Feb 13, 2018, 10:54PM »

I think most that understand what Occam's razor really signifies do.  There is strong (unknown to have been broken, actually) precedent in physics to support Occam's razor.  That precedent is, in simplified form, that any given system will move to it's lowest possible energy state as quickly as possible.  The universe is extremely stingy with energy.  Maybe God was a Scotsman.

Tangent Alert

Einstein is thought to have said "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler."

Einstein "quotes" are often paraphrases though, probably because his original statement stated as simply as possible:

In this case the actual quote was "It can scarcely be denied that the supreme goal of all theory is to make the irreducible basic elements as simple and as few as possible without having to surrender the adequate representation of a single datum of experience."  {I like irony, don't you?}

Which itself was a critique of too much Occam.  So how much is enough?

Quote
The analogy to Occam's razor is that complex explanations/situations/circumstances require more energy to maintain their complexity.  Even to state it.

Saying the God is the answer to everything is in one sense very Occam.

Quote
It also helps explain why people are inherently lazy creatures, just like all creatures, we tend to take the easiest path so that we have to expend the least amount of energy.  Unless, of course, we can see some future advantage in taking extra effort in the moment.  In the end, we save.

I'm not lazy, just efficient.
Logged
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 18813
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #1221 on: Feb 14, 2018, 05:41AM »

Tangent Alert
False alarm ... false alarm.
 
Einstein is thought to have said "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler."
 
Einstein "quotes" are often paraphrases though, probably because his original statement stated as simply as possible:
 
In this case the actual quote was "It can scarcely be denied that the supreme goal of all theory is to make the irreducible basic elements as simple and as few as possible without having to surrender the adequate representation of a single datum of experience."  {I like irony, don't you?}

Which itself was a critique of too much Occam.  So how much is enough?
If by "criticism" you mean "very succinct summation" anyway.
 
Saying the God is the answer to everything is in one sense very Occam.
Until you try to unpack it anyway.
 
It works exactly like magic in this sense. Magic is a simple "answer", but then if you try to unpack what it means--what magic is and how it works (we have to assume it works for the sake of exposition here), we should very quickly realize it's only the appearance of "Occamism" if you don't really think about the "answer" so much.
 
So I'd say this is a good analog for religious apologetics, but not at all Occam, as you suggest.
 
I'm not lazy, just efficient.
Heh ... sounds like one of my troops here at the UGA Science Library.
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
BillO
A trombone is not measured by it's name.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Ontario Canada
Joined: Jun 24, 2015
Posts: 3621

View Profile
« Reply #1222 on: Feb 14, 2018, 06:22AM »

Tangent Alert

Einstein is thought to have said "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler."

Einstein "quotes" are often paraphrases though, probably because his original statement stated as simply as possible:

In this case the actual quote was "It can scarcely be denied that the supreme goal of all theory is to make the irreducible basic elements as simple and as few as possible without having to surrender the adequate representation of a single datum of experience."  {I like irony, don't you?}

Einstein was very aware of the fact that, especially in nature, complexity (or the lack thereof) is a subjective thing.  The reason it's subjective is pretty simple.  We don't know everything.  Nature, much like God, does not dance to our whim and as often as not does not behave as we expect.  In essence that quote of Einstein's was a warning not to bring too many expectations to the table when you seek to learn from nature.  Nonetheless, the end result of every natural interaction is that result which encompasses the least energy.  It may indeed not be the result we expect - and when that happens we learn.

Quote
Which itself was a critique of too much Occam.  So how much is enough?
Not so much - see above.

Quote
Saying the God is the answer to everything is in one sense very Occam.
It posses a certain efficiency anyway, but it may be a textbook case of what Einstein was warning about.

Quote
I'm not lazy, just efficient.
Nature at work.
Logged

Never look at the conductor. You just encourage them.

Have you noticed, some folk never stick around to help tidy up after practice?
B0B
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Jun 27, 2008
Posts: 5932

View Profile
« Reply #1223 on: Feb 14, 2018, 06:39AM »

Yup ... just in the last year in fact, although it is hard to nail down precisely. It's a process, but the time frame during which an assumption dies and a new understanding solidifies is intellectually exhilarating and humbling, and when it's a really big assumption it can also be unnerving and upsetting (particularly when there are social and familial consequences). A more exhilarating death of assumption was the thing with me in the latter half of '17. Before that, a lot of relatively minor assumption death (minor for me, anyway), but not much that was particularly big until you get back to the mid-late '90s.
If it's a process to challenge current accepted ideas and reform them better and stronger, then that is not hard to nail down.

You have an existing assumption, you intentionally challenge it, it changes. Pretty simple. You know what was, you know if it changed, you know why.

Where things become vague isn't in challenging what is known, but growing it...aka learning something different/new. Which is quite different than intentionally challenging what is already learned or known.

In the past couple weeks I've been learning/working in three new programming languages, a new OS, reminded of a couple languages I haven't used in a decade, and working in one language which I know quite well, but the legacy code is a very different style than typical. Now, does learning these different things grow my approaches that I might use in more comfortable languages? Sure. But they aren't challenging it or the truth of it. Simply offering alternate techniques. Like holding a slide with thumb/pointer or between the middle and ring finger with the thumb to catch occasionally. Or listening to a new jazzer who has some ideas I might want to try in my own solos. That's just learning/growing.

Part of that is also that I've been developing an aversion to making assumptions and an inclination to accept uncertainty--just part of learning about human brains and applied critical thinking.
...
No, what it sounds like is that you're very comfortable with presumption.
You say you have an aversion to making assumptions.... Just before you make an assumption. The words aren't matching up, Byron.
 
Again, like above, you seem to be confusing concepts.
1) Saying you have a regular process to challenge existing concepts, though you can't really say what was challenged, nor list anything of consideration since the late 90's.
2) Your examples at best would be learning, rather than challenging what is learned.
3) What you say doesn't actually match up or hold consistent with other things you say, which typically indicates a lack of thought of the subject rather than an abundance of it.

Maybe it's time to go back and consider, how much do you really challenge what you know, and how much of it is just settling into the idea that you challenge without having to put in the effort?

If I were in your shoes and in your apparent state of mind I'm sure I'd also avoid that question like ... well, like a properly calibrated ruler.
What are you even talking about?
Logged
BillO
A trombone is not measured by it's name.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Ontario Canada
Joined: Jun 24, 2015
Posts: 3621

View Profile
« Reply #1224 on: Feb 14, 2018, 06:42AM »

I would think that you would assume things like:
- that reality is entirely natural and that it is as we perceive or measure it
- that reality is all potential
- that the supernatural does not affect the natural cosmos
- that history is a result of a cause and effect chain
- that there is no afterlife
- that truth has a high value
Assumptions are an important part of the scientific process but, like a catalyst, are only needed for the development of an hypothesis.  Once a theory is minted, the assumptions can be thrown away.

An example would be the discovery of the particle nature of matter.  We'll need to go to Einstein again.  He was thinking about the discovery of Robert Brown that small, light specks floating on the surface of a liquid move without apparent provocation in a random manner.  Albert was bright enough to make the assumption that even tinier particles in constant motion were banging into the speck and pushing it around.  He then developed a mathematical model that exactly predicted the motion of a speck using that assumption.  A few years later the particles were found and that model was shown to be correct.  The assumption was then no longer needed and a theory was minted.

The use of assumptions is one way to tell an hypothesis from a theory.

The dangerous thing in Science is to have firm expectations.   Another dangerous thing is presupposition - which boils down to expectations.
Logged

Never look at the conductor. You just encourage them.

Have you noticed, some folk never stick around to help tidy up after practice?
John the Theologian
*
Online Online

Location:
Joined: Feb 16, 2013
Posts: 1021

View Profile
« Reply #1225 on: Feb 14, 2018, 07:07AM »

Assumptions are an important part of the scientific process but, like a catalyst, are only needed for the development of an hypothesis.  Once a theory is minted, the assumptions can be thrown away.

An example would be the discovery of the particle nature of matter.  We'll need to go to Einstein again.  He was thinking about the discovery of Robert Brown that small, light specks floating on the surface of a liquid move without apparent provocation in a random manner.  Albert was bright enough to make the assumption that even tinier particles in constant motion were banging into the speck and pushing it around.  He then developed a mathematical model that exactly predicted the motion of a speck using that assumption.  A few years later the particles were found and that model was shown to be correct.  The assumption was then no longer needed and a theory was minted.

The use of assumptions is one way to tell an hypothesis from a theory.

The dangerous thing in Science is to have firm expectations.   Another dangerous thing is presupposition - which boils down to expectations.

Bill, assumptions are never thrown away.  Anyone who believes that is really very self-deluded.  I don't mean to be snarky.  It's just the truth.  You've never thrown away your skeptical assumptions since you've adopted them, no matter how much you think you have.  Your whole approach starts with naturalistic assumptions and you filter everything through them, no matter how loud you protest.  No one is a "just the facts, Ma'am" like Jack Webb on Dragnet.  Everyone brings assumptions.  Yes, sometimes we challenge those assumptions, sometimes change some or all of them, but none of us can operate without assumptions.  Even the idea that the universe is orderly is an assumption we bring to our awareness every day.
Logged
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 18813
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #1226 on: Feb 14, 2018, 07:26AM »

Bill, assumptions are never thrown away.  Anyone who believes that is really very self-deluded.  I don't mean to be snarky.  It's just the truth.  You've never thrown away your skeptical assumptions since you've adopted them, no matter how much you think you have.  Your whole approach starts with naturalistic assumptions and you filter everything through them, no matter how loud you protest.  No one is a "just the facts, Ma'am" like Jack Webb on Dragnet.  Everyone brings assumptions.  Yes, sometimes we challenge those assumptions, sometimes change some or all of them, but none of us can operate without assumptions.  Even the idea that the universe is orderly is an assumption we bring to our awareness every day.

That all sounds like strategic/apologetic linguistics rather than anything actually relevant though--i.e. I suspect you're calling apples oranges because oranges work with your recipe and apples don't. The problem is that an apple by any other name still tastes like and maintains the characteristics of an apple.
 
Apple:
Assumptions aren't absolute. If we can identify them and address them we can change our minds accordingly. Many of us have even done so. Otherwise there'd be no changes of mind, much less major ones like apostasies.
 
Orange:
There's no such thing as challenging assumptions (define assumptions as absolute--use as proof by definition--repeat multiple times, varying emphasis, imagery and language).
 
What is it you would say one is dealing with when changing one's mind, particularly about major issues/key aspects of one's understanding of reality?
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
B0B
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Jun 27, 2008
Posts: 5932

View Profile
« Reply #1227 on: Feb 14, 2018, 07:33AM »

What is it you would say one is dealing with when changing one's mind, particularly about major issues/key aspects of one's understanding of reality?
When you first came to realize that your parents could die, that is a major change in understanding of reality. Did you "deal" with it? Did you come to it logically through a process? Did you say to yourself, "today I want to challenge my assumption of parental immortality"?

So far, you have yet to show an example of your own theory working... Much less that you can use logic or a process to shift how you truly understand reality. Even your own history is quite lacking here.

Before you go and try to name it, do you even have anything to say it is real?
Logged
BillO
A trombone is not measured by it's name.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Ontario Canada
Joined: Jun 24, 2015
Posts: 3621

View Profile
« Reply #1228 on: Feb 14, 2018, 07:37AM »

Bill, assumptions are never thrown away.  Anyone who believes that is really very self-deluded.  I don't mean to be snarky.  It's just the truth.  You've never thrown away your skeptical assumptions since you've adopted them, no matter how much you think you have.  Your whole approach starts with naturalistic assumptions and you filter everything through them, no matter how loud you protest.  No one is a "just the facts, Ma'am" like Jack Webb on Dragnet.  Everyone brings assumptions.  Yes, sometimes we challenge those assumptions, sometimes change some or all of them, but none of us can operate without assumptions.  Even the idea that the universe is orderly is an assumption we bring to our awareness every day.
I beg to differ with you John.  Yes, there are assumptions I still hold onto.  Like I said, you need them to work with ideas.

However, many, many I have tossed, because they were proven one way or the other.

One has gone out the door recently with the help of people like Martin and yourself.  I had assumed I was an apostate - that I was once a believer and then saw the light.  However, when I compare what I thought was my 'belief' to what I have gleaned from my discussions with Martin and yourself I come to realize that I can no longer call my self an apostate as I never was a believer.  Not even close.

So yes, assumptions are thrown away - all the time.

And I may be self deluded (thanks for the reminder, BTW), but not because I know that assumptions can and will be made, used and discarded on an on-going basis.

John, maybe it's you that does not understand what an assumption is.  Is that even slightly possible?
Logged

Never look at the conductor. You just encourage them.

Have you noticed, some folk never stick around to help tidy up after practice?
John the Theologian
*
Online Online

Location:
Joined: Feb 16, 2013
Posts: 1021

View Profile
« Reply #1229 on: Feb 14, 2018, 07:42AM »


That all sounds like strategic/apologetic linguistics rather than anything actually relevant though--i.e. I suspect you're calling apples oranges because oranges work with your recipe and apples don't. The problem is that an apple by any other name still tastes like and maintains the characteristics of an apple.
 
Apple:
Assumptions aren't absolute. If we can identify them and address them we can change our minds accordingly. Many of us have even done so. Otherwise there'd be no changes of mind, much less major ones like apostasies.
 
Orange:
There's no such thing as challenging assumptions (define assumptions as absolute--use as proof by definition--repeat multiple times, varying emphasis, imagery and language).
 
What is it you would say one is dealing with when changing one's mind, particularly about major issues/key aspects of one's understanding of reality?

It's actually completely relevant.  One changes basic assumptions when one thinks that they no longer explain reality adequately.  I don't deny that at all.  No one really should.

To say that one has no assumptions simply is not workable.  The brute fact is the mute fact unless it's put into a context.  The context is our assumptions.  You changed your basic assumptions.   You believe that you did so because your older theistic assumptions no longer worked.  However, you did not go from having theistic assumptions to having no assumptions. You moved from have theistic assumptions to having naturalistic ones.
Logged
BillO
A trombone is not measured by it's name.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Ontario Canada
Joined: Jun 24, 2015
Posts: 3621

View Profile
« Reply #1230 on: Feb 14, 2018, 07:53AM »

So far, you have yet to show an example of your own theory working... Much less that you can use logic or a process to shift how you truly understand reality. Even your own history is quite lacking here.
He's given you two that I've seen.  But as usual you simply refuse to acknowledge them because they didn't affirm what you have already made up your mind about.  You are never here to discuss, are you Bob?

You honestly don't get Byron's little ruler analogy, do you?  You've been waving it around and trying to beat people on the head with it so long it's become an indistinguishable part of you.
Logged

Never look at the conductor. You just encourage them.

Have you noticed, some folk never stick around to help tidy up after practice?
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 18813
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #1231 on: Feb 14, 2018, 07:55AM »

It's actually completely relevant.  One changes basic assumptions when one thinks that they no longer explain reality adequately.  I don't deny that at all.  No one really should.
 
To say that one has no assumptions simply is not workable.  The brute fact is the mute fact unless it's put into a context.  The context is our assumptions.  You changed your basic assumptions.   You believe that you did so because your older theistic assumptions no longer worked.  However, you did not go from having theistic assumptions to having no assumptions. You moved from have theistic assumptions to having naturalistic ones.
 
What would you call it when you change your mind because you see evidence that indicates you need to do so? Also, what would you call abandoning a given assumption, and if you assume it has to be replaced, why exactly do you think that? And how would you categorize accepting uncertainty as a default, unavoidable fact of reality (i.e. the fact we can't rely 100% upon our perceptions and understanding unavoidably means we can't be certain of anything we're not creating ourselves, and even uncertainty is that sort of thing is quite easily arguable)?
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
B0B
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Jun 27, 2008
Posts: 5932

View Profile
« Reply #1232 on: Feb 14, 2018, 08:01AM »

He's given you two that I've seen.  But as usual you simply refuse to acknowledge them because they didn't affirm what you have already made up your mind about.
Really? Where? Can you quote where he did so?

I see him at one point say he changed his mind about something recently, though in a rather vague way where he couldn't even say what that was, and mostly the conversion from faith to non-faith 20 years ago. The first I have addressed and asked for detail which hasn't come, and the second... your own example is not uncommon. Never really had faith to abandon. The core to whether there is a "process" as Byron claims, would be repetition. So that one is questionable, and there seems to be nothing to follow.

 Don't know

Yall are the ones advocating the use logic and theory. Amazing how defensive you get when those same techniques are applied to what you advocate.
Logged
B0B
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Jun 27, 2008
Posts: 5932

View Profile
« Reply #1233 on: Feb 14, 2018, 08:03AM »

What would you call it when you change your mind because you see evidence that indicates you need to do so?
Typically that is called "changing your mind".

Also, what would you call abandoning a given assumption, and if you assume it has to be replaced, why exactly do you think that?
Again, typically that is called "changing your mind".

And how would you categorize accepting uncertainty as a default, unavoidable fact of reality (i.e. the fact we can't rely 100% upon our perceptions and understanding unavoidably means we can't be certain of anything we're not creating ourselves, and even uncertainty is that sort of thing is quite easily arguable)?
Right now, that would be called Byron unproven assumption.
Logged
John the Theologian
*
Online Online

Location:
Joined: Feb 16, 2013
Posts: 1021

View Profile
« Reply #1234 on: Feb 14, 2018, 08:03AM »

 
What would you call it when you change your mind because you see evidence that indicates you need to do so? Also, what would you call abandoning a given assumption, and if you assume it has to be replaced, why exactly do you think that? And how would you categorize accepting uncertainty as a default, unavoidable fact of reality (i.e. the fact we can't rely 100% upon our perceptions and understanding unavoidably means we can't be certain of anything we're not creating ourselves, and even uncertainty is that sort of thing is quite easily arguable)?

As T Kuhn pointed out in his influential book on the history of Science-- The Structure of Scientific Revolutions-- all major shifts in science came from what he called paradigm overload.  However, he pointed out that a new reigning paradigm would replace the old one after a period of flux and scrambling-- often rather quickly.  One does not do science, let alone the rest of our worldview without paradigms, what I've called assumptions or presuppositions or worldviews.  

Yes uncertainty can be a part of one's basic assumptions-- actually to a certain degree everyone works with some level of uncertainty.

However, I don't actually see that much uncertainty in your assumptions.  You seem quite certain about your naturalism, which is the Big Assumption that is driving your whole paradigm.
Logged
ronkny

*
*
Online Online

Location: wa
Joined: Sep 30, 2007
Posts: 11408

View Profile
« Reply #1235 on: Feb 14, 2018, 08:10AM »

If it's a process to challenge current accepted ideas and reform them better and stronger, then that is not hard to nail down.

You have an existing assumption, you intentionally challenge it, it changes. Pretty simple. You know what was, you know if it changed, you know why.

Where things become vague isn't in challenging what is known, but growing it...aka learning something different/new. Which is quite different than intentionally challenging what is already learned or known.

In the past couple weeks I've been learning/working in three new programming languages, a new OS, reminded of a couple languages I haven't used in a decade, and working in one language which I know quite well, but the legacy code is a very different style than typical. Now, does learning these different things grow my approaches that I might use in more comfortable languages? Sure. But they aren't challenging it or the truth of it. Simply offering alternate techniques. Like holding a slide with thumb/pointer or between the middle and ring finger with the thumb to catch occasionally. Or listening to a new jazzer who has some ideas I might want to try in my own solos. That's just learning/growing.
You say you have an aversion to making assumptions.... Just before you make an assumption. The words aren't matching up, Byron.
 
Again, like above, you seem to be confusing concepts.
1) Saying you have a regular process to challenge existing concepts, though you can't really say what was challenged, nor list anything of consideration since the late 90's.
2) Your examples at best would be learning, rather than challenging what is learned.
3) What you say doesn't actually match up or hold consistent with other things you say, which typically indicates a lack of thought of the subject rather than an abundance of it.

Maybe it's time to go back and consider, how much do you really challenge what you know, and how much of it is just settling into the idea that you challenge without having to put in the effort?
What are you even talking about?
Byron knows all things. We are mearly pawns in the game of Life.
Byron, stop analyzing people an saying things like, "what you are really saying is......." The reason you don't think you make assumptions is because you believe your assumptions are fact.  That's your huge mistake. K oock it off and we'll have less sidebars like this.
Logged

Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.
Ronald Reagan
BillO
A trombone is not measured by it's name.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Ontario Canada
Joined: Jun 24, 2015
Posts: 3621

View Profile
« Reply #1236 on: Feb 14, 2018, 08:22AM »

... your own example is not uncommon. Never really had faith to abandon.
And that somehow invalidates my discarding the assumption?  Hmm...

As to a process, see my example about Einstein and Brownian motion.  The process is simple.  One makes an assumption, tests it (or it gets tested for them) and once it is either proven correct or proven wrong, it is discarded - or more accurately, just goes away.

So, I have given two examples.  My assumed apostasy and Einstein's assumed tiny particles.  Mine was proven wrong, Einstein's was proven right - both are gone.

Here's a third one.  It was -30C here yesterday morning.  As I went out to the car I assumed it would need a boost to get going.  That it needed a boost was proven right.  The assumption was discarded.

Now a fourth.  I am assuming you will not accept this discourse.

Logged

Never look at the conductor. You just encourage them.

Have you noticed, some folk never stick around to help tidy up after practice?
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 18813
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #1237 on: Feb 14, 2018, 08:25AM »

I'd like to know what kind of assumptions presuppositionalists assume I'm making though (I'm not assuming that means you). More importantly, if everyone does make assumptions, how does that excuse them from being assumptions?
I would think that you would assume things like:
- that reality is entirely natural and that it is as we perceive or measure it
Nope. Again, and this is going to be the response every time this one comes up just as it has been every time prior, it's about what we can know--observations we can verify are in fact observations of reality rather than the imposition of our biases upon reality. In other words, we have to have some pretty solid assurances that we're not fooling ourselves. That's what science and critical thinking boil down to, ultimately.
 
This is accepting the unknown and the limitations that all human brain owners have to work with--perhaps the most fundamental, definitive facts of life in terms of our experience and understanding of it. If you don't warm up to this one, I'm not sure much in the way of genuine understanding is at all likely. But since we all function through our senses that's not necessarily as much of a thing as it sounds--most of our basic, visceral understanding of the personal cosmos (that which is the immediate world of our experience)
 
- that reality is all potential
I have some guesses as to what you mean by that but I'd rather not presume. Can you unpack it a bit?
 
- that the supernatural does not affect the natural cosmos
Again, see the initial reply above.
 
- that history is a result of a cause and effect chain
I have less of a sense of what you mean on this one--could come up with some guesses, but ...
 
- that there is no afterlife
Same as first and third ... I certainly hope the evidence is just lacking though!
 
- that truth has a high value
Woah! That's an interesting one.
 
I'm not sure how one values truth is relevant. It's still what it is, regardless--what's true is true, and if you're interested in what's true rather than what's not, it's important. But again, maybe we can get to a better understanding on this with a little unpacking--give me a sense of how this would apply in the real world and/or rhetoric (i.e. whatever you're referring to).
 
What sort of questions do you ask about that?  I assume that this is the same as asking if 'reality' is simulated.
Heh. I see what you did there!
 
Basically that's it ... yeah.
 
You can call it an axiom
A rose by any other name (to stick with a bit of an ongoing useful theme here).

But maybe there are facts about reality that can't be verified: that you have to take on faith.  Are you assuming that there are none of them?  How would you verify whether that assumption is true or not?
Sounds like denying uncertainty to me, but what kind of facts about reality do you think we have to take on faith?
 
I think you're asking about people who change their mind on things that clash with their world view aka faith.  They either live with the dissonance or change their  understanding of their world view to include the new truth or swap their world view for another one they are more comfortable with.
That's not an unfair way to put it--can't disagree with that.
 
It takes us right back to the difference between deriving your understanding from the data reality offers vs. imposing something else you've decided to add upon that data. I'd argue the latter is pretty clearly a problem, and that our posture, if we're interested in as accurate an understanding of reality as we can manage, must be to eliminate all of those artificial additions as we can. Defending the knowing addition of our own baggage into the data we consider is hardly an appropriate way to understand what's really there rather than what our minds slip into the mix.
 
Again, as Feynman and many other highly astute types have said in so many words, science (and critical thinking) is how we've learned to avoid fooling ourselves. Defending bias (ex. presuppositionalism) is defending fooling ourselves.
 
I talk in terms of world views because they have sets of assumptions that characterise them.  But that is an assumption too I guess.  Do you have a world view that only has the assumptions that you mentioned above?
That I'm not likely a brain in a vat, so to speak? ... sort of.
 
I acknowledge that I have some basic assumptions.  eg That God exists and is the fundamental fact of reality.  I understand that they come as part of my world view.  I think that your world view would have its own set of assumptions/axioms but am still checking that out.
How about:  
  - Uncertainty is the fundamental nature of life using a human brain (and probably just of life, period,
    assuming the cognitive capacity for it, of course).
  - Adding our own brain baggage to our data on reality isn't deriving data about reality from reality
    itself, it's imposing our baggage upon it ... changing it.
  - We have to accept that anything we can't be sure of is uncertain.
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
B0B
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Jun 27, 2008
Posts: 5932

View Profile
« Reply #1238 on: Feb 14, 2018, 08:29AM »

And that somehow invalidates my discarding the assumption?  Hmm...
That would be your assumption, and it is incorrect. It wouldn't invalidate yours. It would however raise issues with Byron's main working assumption.

As to a process, see my example about Einstein and Brownian motion.  The process is simple.  One makes an assumption, tests it (or it gets tested for them) and once it is either proven correct or proven wrong, it is discarded - or more accurately, just goes away.
in your own example, your assumption was proved wrong. Your base way of working never really changed. Maybe in a maturation type of way, but not in abandoning one for the other.

So, I have given two examples.
First you said "he has given you two examples", referring to Byron and now you give me two.

I have no qualm with the assertion that assumptions can be wrong. They often are. You could even say I agree with you on that :)


What I have question with is the assumption that we can be rid of our assumptions or institute a process that can and does regularly re-evaluate what we know in a way that is likely to do so not based on those same assumptions, and when it finds something off, that we can logically adjust our base understanding to fit the correction.

That is quite a high bar... that has very little support.


Now a fourth.  I am assuming you will not accept this discourse.
Another one that should be discarded. If you know of something to support Byron's main assumption here, I'd be happy to hear it.
Logged
B0B
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Jun 27, 2008
Posts: 5932

View Profile
« Reply #1239 on: Feb 14, 2018, 08:34AM »

How about:  
  - Uncertainty is the fundamental nature of life using a human brain (and probably just of life, period,
    assuming the cognitive capacity for it, of course).
You say that with a great deal of certainty...

In which case, how can you be certain that uncertainty is fundamental?
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 57 58 59 60 61 [62] 63 64 65 66 67 ... 74   Go Up
Print
Jump to: