my timing was all off.never mind
Sorry to hijack your thread. Not sure what else I can add to the OP. Discussions of the scientific method often devolve into arguments about “scientism”.
Sorry to hijack your thread. Not sure what else I can add to the OP. Discussions of the scientific method often devolve into arguments about “scientism”.
Parmedines seems like a nutterYou have 2,500 more years of philosophy to draw on than he did. I would hope you have a little more to say on the subject than he did. If you are just going pick random people from history and call them "nutters", don't expect to get much respect from people alive today.
Not random people but just this guy when I looked at the wiki page on Metaphysics. Especially since atomic theory has better evidence for it than his nonsense.
I think people just spout Scientism when science begins to give more practical reasons for their “magic”.
Not random people but just this guySorry. I didn't realize you went to all that trouble to go to wikipedia and skim down until you saw "The ancient Greeks took extreme positions on the nature of change." then clicked on the name next to that. Maybe you should edit that wiki page to say "Parmenides is a nutter", to add your brilliant commentary to the general knowledge of the world.
From the credible hulk article:“The scientists and their results needn’t necessarily agree on every single minute detail, and the data convergence will typically fall within a set of error bars, but will point to the same general conclusion even if debates still exist on the minutia.”
My experience has been that non-science-types find any disagreement, no matter how insignificant, to be ‘proof’ that there isn’t consensus.
It’s very frustrating to hear climate-change deniers, anti-vaxers, and others of that ilk, say that any they heard of a scientist/doctor/etc. that isn’t in 100% agreement with the mainstream workers in the field, so they are justified in ignoring the scientific consensus.
This is from Brief History of Time
Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis: you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory. As philosopher of science Karl Popper has emphasized, a good theory is characterized by the fact that it makes a number of predictions that could in principle be disproved or falsified by observation. Each time new experiments are observed to agree with the predictions the theory survives, and our confidence in it is increased; but if ever a new observation is found to disagree, we have to abandon or modify the theory.By parsing out a couple words like "can" and "even a single observation" and ignoring how experiments lead to greater agreement, it's easy to turn this into to, "one piece of data disproves a theory". And that gets expanded to meaning any piece of contradictory data destroys the theory.
Isn’t that an issue though? In the case of the non science types who take disagreement to mean that there isn’t a consensus? What about those who say “you can’t prove it false so it must be so” (or something like it).
Sorry. I didn’t realize you went to all that trouble to go to wikipedia and skim down until you saw “The ancient Greeks took extreme positions on the nature of change.” then clicked on the name next to that. Maybe you should edit that wiki page to say “Parmenides is a nutter”, to add your brilliant commentary to the general knowledge of the world.It really doesn’t take much to see that aspect of him to be questionable, yet people call it philosophy
Lausten: "By parsing out a couple words like “can” and “even a single observation” and ignoring how experiments lead to greater agreement, it’s easy to turn this into to, “one piece of data disproves a theory”. And that gets expanded to meaning any piece of contradictory data destroys the theory."That really makes me think of the assertion that finding rabbit fossils in Precambrian rocks would disprove evolution.
After looking it up, I found that it’s attributed to J. B. S. Haldane, but there’s no direct quote from him. There is, however, a Dawkins quote about it: “As J. B. S. Haldane said when asked what evidence might contradict evolution, ‘Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian’.” It’s odd that such a well known quote isn’t even a quote, but rather just something someone supposedly said. I feel a bit ripped off that this ‘quote’ that I’ve liked for so long isn’t as legitimate as I thought. Oh well, it still makes a good point.
It really doesn’t take much to see that aspect of him to be questionable, yet people call it philosophyXian is now serving as a bad example. Besides the problem with the English language, let's assume the "aspect" is what wikipedia says, that this ancient Greek took an extreme position. We have one fragmented work by him, but it's the earliest mention of these ideas, and he taught them and they were referenced and expanded upon. Even if everything we know he said was considered bunk, that wouldn't change his place as the one who kicked off the conversation. Scientific Consensus is not about the original writings of the original theory, it's about all the work that has gone on since and how that work narrows the error bars.
Lausten: "Even if everything we know he said was considered bunk, that wouldn’t change his place as the one who kicked off the conversation."And even if what he said may be bunk today, in no way should anyone consider him anything other than a great thinker. Judging anyone from the past through the lens of our current knowledge, is wrong, and the further back someone lived, the wronger it is to judge them.
Without someone kicking off the conversation, there would be no conversation. The only thing required from the one kicking off the conversation, is that they listen carefully to the replies, think about them, and then respond intelligently (otherwise there is no conversation.)
I received the following post from PatrickD by email, but I can’t find it here, although the link says it should be here. Nor can I find the post number, 300770. Nevertheless, I am determined 
to reply to several things Patrick D wrote.
My responses are interspersed in the post below.
PD: While I agree that questions such as free will vs determinism don’t have much of an effect on my daily life, other questions do.
The most obvious is ethics and morality, internal rules by which we live. That question impacts daily life.’
Lois: ethics and morality do impact daily life, but ethics and morality are just as determined in each of us as is everything else we do or think. They are also affected by the determined thoughts and actions of everyone else.
PD: That we are unable to answer some questions definitively does not mean the questions are not worth asking, or irrelevant. This applies to questions about reality, the meaning of existence, of god and free will. I find those questions interesting and important, but will not obsess over any of them. Usually I accept a position as ‘most likely’ or “to the extent I can understand.”
Lois: I agree.
PD: EG I can understand the basic reasoning in the argument for hard determinism . If I try to expand the basic argument, I become confused. Does not free will mean the consequences to all individual behaviour is predetermined?.
Lois: they are not PRE determined. They are determined by factors that are always in flux.
PD: Because the reactions of all human beings are predetermined? Thus, all wars are predetermined, as are all ‘virtuous’ acts? I find that hard to get my head around; it seems nihilistic to me. Although I have some pretty negative beliefs about human beings as a species, I love and appreciate life, every day. Even being on this forum is an enjoyable, and helpful past time; helps keep my mind active.
Lois: You are creating a difficulty where none exists. The reactions of human beings are determined, never PREdetermined. Predetermination requires a predeterminer, such as a god. Determinism just rolls along, going this way and that, according to conditions present. Like evolution or water running a particular way, wars are not PREdetermined, any more than evolution or the direction of flowing water is PREdetermined. They are determined by factors of the moment in everyone involved, which creates the environment that will or will not lead to war. No war would take place if the determined thoughts and actions of enough people on both sides weren’t leading them to engage in war. The determined conditions must continue to remain volatile on both sides in order for war to begin and continue. When the determined actions and thoughts become less volatile enough within enough people, the war would end. Conditions change, thoughts change. They are determined to change by determined, not PREdetermined thoughts and actions and the environment they create. If we could know the determining factors are that are driving all the people involved and be able to assess them we could know when a war would begin and end. But knowing the countless determining factors in every person involved in starting a war and being able to assess which ones will take precedence in each person is beyond the capacity of any human brain. And none of those millions of people, using what some would call “free will” could change the conditions by overriding the existence and drive of the determining factors.
LoisL
Post Link: https://centerforinquiry.org/forums/topic/scientific-consensus-is/page/2/#post-300770
Xian is now serving as a bad example. Besides the problem with the English language, let’s assume the “aspect” is what wikipedia says, that this ancient Greek took an extreme position. We have one fragmented work by him, but it’s the earliest mention of these ideas, and he taught them and they were referenced and expanded upon. Even if everything we know he said was considered bunk, that wouldn’t change his place as the one who kicked off the conversation. Scientific Consensus is not about the original writings of the original theory, it’s about all the work that has gone on since and how that work narrows the error bars.Perhaps, but his work wasn't very scientific is you read where he got it from.
But in regards to my other question, how do you argue against the spiritual types that say their personal experience trumps all your science.
Thanks for that.
Sorry for being so thick; I’m having trouble understanding the difference between determined and predetermined.
IF no free will, any decision we make , or action we take , is determined by various factors, before the fact.(?) If determined before fact, isn’t that pre-determined?
Patrick D.
Sorry for being so thick;
Lois: You’re not thick. A lot of people can’t wrap their minds around determinism, but you’ve caught onto the gist very well.
PD. I’m having trouble understanding the difference between determined and predetermined.
IF no free will, any decision we make , or action we take , is determined by various factors, before the fact.(?) If determined before fact, isn’t that pre-determined?
Lois. Technically, yes, but IMO, predetermined has a different connotation. One dictionary defines it this way: “determined in advance by divine will or fate; predestined.”
When I speak of determinism I don’t mean “determined in advance by divine will or fate” or in a vacuum. What I mean is that decisions and actions are determined pretty much on the spot by countless determining factors that are not a result of divine intervention, nor are they fated, which is another premise of a divine reward or punishment for human actions. Because predetermination has so much divine woo attached to it, I prefer to use a different word that makes a distinction between the two concepts. It’s hard enough for people to understand determinism without muddying the waters with semantics. To me, predetermined means that one’s whole life is decided way ahead of time, probably at conception (or before), and there is nothing that will change that divine plan. Determinism as I see it, is more like evolution. Nothing has decided in advance how a biological form will change —it changes according to countless factors no human can possibly identify. It changes by responding to its environment.
I hope this helps. I know it’s hard for most people to to get their mind around it, even partially. I’m always open to discussing it. Most people reject the concept right from the get-go. Their attitude is, “That’s ridiculous” I KNOW I decide my own actions by force of my free will. I feel it. And I take responsibility for my actions.” Anyone who is that adamant about the premise is pretty much a lost cause and will probably never understand the premise. It’s something like understanding the tenets and explanations of a religion not your own. You can learn the premises of the religion without accepting it as true. I often think that about young people who reject evolution because they’ve been indoctrinated to do so. That’s ok, but they can and should, IMO, learn how the theory of evolution works even if they continue to reject it as actually happening. Maybe they’ll eventually begin to see some contradictions in their own anti-evolutionary religion. If they don’t, ok, but they should know how and why the premise of evolution works and why it’s accepted by virtually all biological scientists,
I could go on with this, but I’ve written enough already and it’s late.
Cheers,
Lois
I think I kind of understand your reasoning. I also reject the notion of ‘fate’ in terms of divine/outside forces. Not sure I’m able to completely agree with you. Seems perhaps to be a matter of a distinction without a difference .
Having said that, it’s moot; this is an academic exercise, but a fascinating one. --------I read a bit of the free will/ determinism dichotomy at university about 40 years ago. (I only had a year of philosophy) At the time: Free will; yeah, I agree with that. Hard determinism ; yeah, I agree with that. Soft determinism ; yeah I agree with that,. Indeterminism; yeah, I agree with that. My professor was a soft determinist. I disagreed with him. That may have been because he was an arsehole who liked making poor little convent girls cry.
From there to hard determinism is progress I think. However, I still have niggles, which is the way I like it. Certainty bothers me. I think I need to think about it for a few more years…
Lois: "The reactions of human beings are determined, never PREdetermined. Predetermination requires a predeterminer, such as a god. Determinism just rolls along, going this way and that, according to conditions present."I have problems seeing the practical difference between determined and predetermined.
- Predetermined = something made a conscious decision to make things happen a certain way.
- Determined = things will happen in a certain way simply because that's what the starting conditions will inevitably lead to.
Although the definitions are different, they lead to the same outcome, don’t they? If the circumstances that lead to war exist, then the circumstances that lead to the circumstances that lead to war must have existed. To make a long story short, the current conditions of the universe, including our actions, were determined at the Big Bang, because they are the ultimate set of circumstances that inevitably lead to every subsequent set of circumstances.
Thus, it was unavoidable that I should be typing this with a seed annoyingly stuck in my teeth while, outside my office, Rick is talking to Randy about hockey. My brain is melting with the ideas popping into it (but I guess that was inevitable too).
And now it looks like CC is getting shadow posted! Bummer dude. You can’t catch a break on this thread. The forum software says you posted something, but it’s not here. Hopefully they have this on their bug-fix list somewhere.
Well this seems to have gotten off topic. It changed to metaphysics and now this. I mean personally I would take a guy who said “nothing moves because that would require it moving in nothing and nothing can not exist”.
As for free will I used to be bothered by determinism but I have grown to be more comfortable with its conclusions. Wasn’t as bad as I thought it would be.
Yeah (Lausten @ 1:22 pm), think it was my own fault, sometimes the puter-gremlins get pissed if you do Edits too soon after posting. And me, talk about determinism, it’s like shit or get off the pot, hit post. Then I reread and of course find some dingleberries I overlooked as I’m prone to. Because before I post I,m more into the substance than the vehicle. Then it’s out there and, oh no.
————————-
But let me try to recall,
@ May 21, 5:20 pm - I wrote: Well said Lausten
————————
Then at May 21, 2019 at 2:22 pm - the Popper stuff and single observation can disproved accepted theory. Of course, on the other hand a calcified cowboy hat does not disprove fossils or radiometric dating.
Also, Popper is more applicable to bench top type chemistry and physics and such - Earth sciences, that is ‘complex systems science’ is a profoundly different animal.
————————
Thought there was something else, but can’t recall.
————————
Though since then I read LoisL at May 22, 2019 at 1:46 am.
Well thank you Lois, in all the years we been butting heads on this, I’m pretty sure you never explained it quite like that. It’s relatable, I have a new found appreciation for what you’ve been trying to explain.