"Super Genius" comes up with revolutionary new theory for the universe?

[sol invictus]

None of them was ever going to do a thing but rehash the stuff they never came up with themselves. A realm utterly devoid of creativity. It shocked me, frankly.

Hopefully, its not like that anymore.

It was never like that with good scientists, because science is fundamentally a creative process. That's what makes it fun.

Though some scientists tend to put a fence around what's been proven; in their mind-field; and protect it with electric fence; even razor wire, so that it can't be violated or trespassed upon.

They become incurious, and simply knowledgeable.
That sucks so bad to be around, that it pushes otherwise brilliant people to woo-ville, for revenge.

Instead, one should never be afraid of knowledge trespass. If something is true it stands up to repeated scrutiny, and you understand it more fully by having seen it from a new angle. If not, you learn something very valuable.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

My take on reality is much less specific than some of the hard evidence guys.
As long as I don't violate any of the Laws, I feel like it's safe to imagine the what's next-ness.

That's a good approach. Of course, radicals in here have this funny belief about anyone who do not buy what they say; it is because they believe in supernatural stuff, or ghosts, or angels or magic... LOL!!!

I'm nearly certain that we're in for tons of cool surprises.

INDEED! This is why I laugh when some recalcitrant naive materialists, with a boring attitude, say that there is really not much left to know... everything is more or less solved, and the world, while interesting, is a deciphered place. I hope they live long enough to have some of those surprises. Our world view is like a living entity, always changing, accommodating itself to the latest available data, and yes, revolutions happen and no, they will never cease to happen. I would bet that almost everything we believe right now will be seen naive and even obtuse by future generations.

When I was in college, my physics and chem and math profs were seriously the stiffest, dorkiest, no fun people I ever met. Crew-cuts; pocket protectors; never been laid in their sorry lives; etc.
But they were damn true to the program. No B.S.

LOL, I feel you there.

They become incurious, and simply knowledgeable.
That sucks so bad to be around, that it pushes otherwise brilliant people to woo-ville, for revenge.

Indeed!

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

So "epistemology" says one should keep cycling through different theories when no new evidence is available, just to reinforce that they're not "The Truth(TM)"? And if such believing is hard-wired, then there is no getting away from it. It will happen anyways.

Yes it will happen always, unless we are educated enough to remember that everything is a belief. Yes, some beliefs correlate better with available (and understood) facts.. but that's it. And yes, I believe it is IMPORTANT to always remember this.

What would they be perceiving them as before this "change" is made, other than evidences?

I reckon this is a difficult point. I already told you, they are not seeing the same "thing" you are seeing. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that in your view, and evidence is "a piece of reality" and people who do not accept it is simply "wrong".

IMO, this is a naive approach. For me an evidence is a relational object, it correlates (or not) with the world view from which it is observed, and it is only in relation to this world view that it is interpreted. Furthermore, it is invisible unless one has the necessity of it, and this necessity comes from a world view that can give it some sort of meaning.

Well, beliefs about the origins of life aren't as problematic as, say, other parts of their belief system. For example, the "satan" stuff will often be associated with everyone who doesn't accept their brand of religion burning in hell forever and ever. That is something destructive to spread around. Wouldn't you think it should be stopped?

For them, believing that there is not a god, or even a satan, is a destructive and dangerous belief. And they think it should be stopped. Infidels need to be converted in order to be saved.

Are some beliefs dangerous? Sure, for other beliefs, for other world views. A hero is a terrorist too. It depends from where you see it.

Another problem could arise if they think they can somehow make things "better" by teaching creationist theory. Creationist theory has led to precisely zero advances in knowledge, technology, etc., unlike evolutionary theory. So evolutionary theory is superior in this sense. If creationist theory were to displace it, then all that advancement would simply stop.

But they will argue that moral advancements, or theological advances, or whatever, are replacing pervert thinking.. or something like that. Again, it all depends on who wins in the end.

Now, before you or others start to believe that I support their world view. No. I don't. But in the same manner I do not support other beliefs which are simply taken for granted by other individuals or groups. I like to study why humans believe, which mechanisms are involved, what is knowledge, what is a theory, what is a meaning, what is a fact. Such kind of things.

And so, what, exactly? There's never going to be a perfect theory. The problems you mention are an inescapable consequence of using evidence. One has to compensate for them. If we didn't use evidence we'd have no knowledge at all. Imperfect knowledge is better than none at all -- and all our knowledge is imperfect. So we have to use evidence.

Well said. Now as you spend time in the JREF forums you will find that some self called materialists are merely believers, and yes, they talk about reality with the authority of someone who KNOWS. Some of them have changed, but (using a word you like) the evidence is there, some of them used to be inquisitors and fundamentalists, arguing like if they really really really knew what is really all about.

 

[RSLancastr]

LOL!




Hmm. And if you don't even understand what you're critiquing, you can't critique it properly (he seems to have some beef with evolution). Yet if their "IQ" is so high, why would they fail to be able to grasp such theory? Does this mean that "IQ" does not measure one's capability to understand scientific theories?

e

An IQ primarily measures one's ability to take an IQ test.

 

[sol invictus]

INDEED! This is why I laugh when some recalcitrant naive materialists, with a boring attitude, say that there is really not much left to know... everything is more or less solved, and the world, while interesting, is a deciphered place.

I don't know anyone that says anything like that. Do you? Really?

I hope they live long enough to have some of those surprises. Our world view is like a living entity, always changing, accommodating itself to the latest available data, and yes, revolutions happen and no, they will never cease to happen. I would bet that almost everything we believe right now will be seen naive and even obtuse by future generations.

Naive and obtuse? That seems very unlikely. If there's one thing I've learned from studying the history of ideas, it's that people in the past thought along very similar lines as we do now. They were neither more intelligent nor more stupid. They merely knew less, were a little less organized and systematic, and they made some assumptions that turned out to be wrong, got stuck in some ruts that took centuries or even millenia to escape... but given what they knew, they came to the same kinds of conclusions and made the same kind of mistakes I or any other modern individual would in their situation.

I'm sure some of our current scientific ideas are wrong. But I'm almost equally sure that future generations will look back and understand full well the valid reasoning that lead to those mistakes. And you will find that good scientists today freely acknowledge our ignorance of many aspects of the world, and the tentative nature of the conclusions we are able to draw.

I strongly suspect that our ideas are basically sound and correct, and that the progress in the future will continue to take place in the incremental way it has over the last four centuries or so - major ideas won't be overturned outright, they will merely be modified into more exact and broadly applicable theories.

The theory of gravity is an excellent example. Newton's theory has now been replaced by Einstein's general relativity. But Newtonian gravity isn't wrong - it's an approximation that isn't always valid, but very often is. Mathematically, general relativity reduces to Newtonian gravity when the gravitational fields involved are weak. It is inconceivable that Newton could have done any better, given what he knew. Einstein's theory required mathematics and physics concepts that weren't developed until more than a century after Newton's death. But when it came, the revolution was really fairly mild. NASA still uses Newton for most problems in orbital dynamics, and when relativity is necessary to take into account, it's as a small correction to Newton.

 

[Complexity]

Thank you, sol invictus.

Bodhi is spouting nonsense again and saying things that s/he knows are not true.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

I don't know anyone that says anything like that. Do you? Really?

But.. sol invictus... in a way... you are saying that yourself!

I strongly suspect that our ideas are basically sound and correct, and that the progress in the future will continue to take place in the incremental way it has over the last four centuries or so - major ideas won't be overturned outright, they will merely be modified into more exact and broadly applicable theories.

Now, please take in to the account that this doesn't mean that you are recalcitrant or boring, unless you are arrogant when you "correct" others.

I believe revolutions are to come, that will reshape basically everything we know and believe as "established knowledge". I believe that our approaches are naive but not because we are stupid, but because we have this "need to be certain about what we know". This is how we work.

Now, to depict a bit of the audacity some people demonstrate in the forums (regarding they are confident in that what they say is correct, accurate and true), I did a very simple search. The phrase "that's a fact" have been pronounced [SIZE=-1]12,100 times.

My reading of this (fact) is that people in here is certain about what they are saying is undoubtedly true, in the purest and deeper sense of the word. In general, nor materialists nor idealists nor woos claim in here "I believe this" or "in my opinion that". [/SIZE]

Naive and obtuse? That seems very unlikely. If there's one thing I've learned from studying the history of ideas, it's that people in the past thought along very similar lines as we do now.

The four elements. The flat earth. The firmament. The geocentrical universe. Phlogiston. Ex-nihilo. Witchcraft. Gods and demons.... you name it. Think about this, most of this ideas were hold as "TRUE" for generations, they were believed by very intelligent individuals, people who was considered informed at the time. Heck, up to this days some of them prevail in some cultures/areas.

They were neither more intelligent nor more stupid. They merely knew less, were a little less organized and systematic, and they made some assumptions that turned out to be wrong, got stuck in some ruts that took centuries or even millenia to escape... but given what they knew, they came to the same kinds of conclusions and made the same kind of mistakes I or any other modern individual would in their situation.

I'm not sure about the "they knew less". They believed different, that's correct. I'm not saying anyone is particularly stupid, but naive, and in some cases obtuse. Besides, my point is that these ideas were once believed to be "a true depiction of the real world". Again, this does not render them stupid, but if they defended such beliefs with passion, claiming that they really had a TRUE depiction of the REAL WORLD, yes.. they were being obtuse and naive.

I'm sure some of our current scientific ideas are wrong. But I'm almost equally sure that future generations will look back and understand full well the valid reasoning that lead to those mistakes. And you will find that good scientists today freely acknowledge our ignorance of many aspects of the world, and the tentative nature of the conclusions we are able to draw.

Valid reasoning given the previous ideas and world views? Yes. And yes, many good scientists (and lots of forum members) are aware of our ignorance. But then again, not everyone.

The theory of gravity is an excellent example. Newton's theory has now been replaced by Einstein's general relativity. But Newtonian gravity isn't wrong - it's an approximation that isn't always valid, but very often is. Mathematically, general relativity reduces to Newtonian gravity when the gravitational fields involved are weak. It is inconceivable that Newton could have done any better, given what he knew. Einstein's theory required mathematics and physics concepts that weren't developed until more than a century after Newton's death. But when it came, the revolution was really fairly mild. NASA still uses Newton for most problems in orbital dynamics, and when relativity is necessary to take into account, it's as a small correction to Newton.

I'm not claiming theoretical accounts are wrong, the example is interesting because we are talking about to very different things here. First, equations that describe the relative movements of objects with different masses and trajectories. Another is the claim about that gravity IS a force. My take? it can be described as a force, it matters zero what it is, because science is not worried about what things "are" but about how we can describe its behaviour.

In this sense, when I talk to somebody who claims that "X is Y" I know I'm talking to a naive materialist. Statements like "the world is made of matter" are pretty convicing when talking to some woos... but utterly absurd when discussing at a different level.

 

[mike3]

Yes it will happen always, unless we are educated enough to remember that everything is a belief. Yes, some beliefs correlate better with available (and understood) facts.. but that's it. And yes, I believe it is IMPORTANT to always remember this.

This is true.

I reckon this is a difficult point. I already told you, they are not seeing the same "thing" you are seeing. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that in your view, and evidence is "a piece of reality" and people who do not accept it is simply "wrong".

Evidence is evidence. Interpretation of it is a different matter. You seemed to be saying that some people wouldn't see it as "evidence". What is "wrong" is if one tries to actively exclude or dismiss the significance of a piece of evidence that is relevant to issues their world view covers.

IMO, this is a naive approach. For me an evidence is a relational object, it correlates (or not) with the world view from which it is observed, and it is only in relation to this world view that it is interpreted. Furthermore, it is invisible unless one has the necessity of it, and this necessity comes from a world view that can give it some sort of meaning.

And so you need world views. Yet which ones do you consider as worth considering, since the possibilities are literally infinite in number?

For them, believing that there is not a god, or even a satan, is a destructive and dangerous belief. And they think it should be stopped. Infidels need to be converted in order to be saved.

Are some beliefs dangerous? Sure, for other beliefs, for other world views. A hero is a terrorist too. It depends from where you see it.

So you still need to find some kind of more "objective" definition of what makes a belief "destructive", otherwise anything goes (even an axe murderer doing murders -- he can come up with some way to "justify" the behavior.). I would not say that religious beliefs are inherently destructive or non-destructive. They are what the believer makes of them. And the atheist can be as dogmatic and stubborn as the theist (note here that I use "atheist" = "believes that no gods could possibly exist or are extremely unlikely to exist", not just someone who lacks a belief they do exist.).

But they will argue that moral advancements, or theological advances, or whatever, are replacing pervert thinking.. or something like that. Again, it all depends on who wins in the end.

Now, before you or others start to believe that I support their world view. No. I don't. But in the same manner I do not support other beliefs which are simply taken for granted by other individuals or groups. I like to study why humans believe, which mechanisms are involved, what is knowledge, what is a theory, what is a meaning, what is a fact. Such kind of things.

What else would you consider as beliefs "simply taken for granted"?

Well said. Now as you spend time in the JREF forums you will find that some self called materialists are merely believers, and yes, they talk about reality with the authority of someone who KNOWS. Some of them have changed, but (using a word you like) the evidence is there, some of them used to be inquisitors and fundamentalists, arguing like if they really really really knew what is really all about.

 

[Aepervius]

Yes it will happen always, unless we are educated enough to remember that everything is a belief. Yes, some beliefs correlate better with available (and understood) facts.. but that's it. And yes, I believe it is IMPORTANT to always remember this.

This is true.

Not true with any *definition* of belief i know of.

Not everything is a belief (aka, not everything is a matter of opinion, or a matter of conviction in absence of proof, or a faith). Thinking everything is a belief shows you don't udnerstand science, or you misappropriate belief to extend accepted definition.

 

[sol invictus]

But.. sol invictus... in a way... you are saying that yourself!

That answers my question of whether you've heard anyone say that. The answer is yes, even though no one said it.

That our current ideas are basically sound and correct - in a way similar to how Newtonian gravity is - is nowhere near "there is really not much left to know... everything is more or less solved... the world... is a deciphered place." A foundation can be solid, but it's not a skyscraper.

The four elements. The flat earth. The firmament. The geocentrical universe. Phlogiston. Ex-nihilo. Witchcraft. Gods and demons.... you name it. Think about this, most of this ideas were hold as "TRUE" for generations, they were believed by very intelligent individuals, people who was considered informed at the time.

Yes, that was my point - some of those people were informed and were intelligent. I don't look at them and think of them as either obtuse or naive, because they were neither. And neither are we (the intelligent ones, at least).

if they defended such beliefs with passion, claiming that they really had a TRUE depiction of the REAL WORLD, yes.. they were being obtuse and naive.

Now I know exactly where you're coming from. The religion that you adhere to - that there is no truth or real material world - dictates that anyone with a different opinion (or even a different strategy) is naive and obtuse.

That isn't just naive and obtuse, it's downright stupid.

 

[PixyMisa]

I believe revolutions are to come, that will reshape basically everything we know and believe as "established knowledge". I believe that our approaches are naive but not because we are stupid, but because we have this "need to be certain about what we know". This is how we work.

Sorry, but you are living in a fairy-tale world.

We know that our approach is correct and our knowledge is essentially sound because it works. Einstein overturned Newton, but Newton was correct within his boundaries. We have pushed the boundaries much further out since then. We know our knowledge is incomplete, but we also know that it is not significantly wrong.

The four elements. The flat earth. The firmament. The geocentrical universe. Phlogiston. Ex-nihilo. Witchcraft. Gods and demons.... you name it. Think about this, most of this ideas were hold as "TRUE" for generations, they were believed by very intelligent individuals, people who was considered informed at the time. Heck, up to this days some of them prevail in some cultures/areas.

And none of them built anything based on those misconceptions.

Our entire modern world is built on science. Science works.

I'm not sure about the "they knew less".

They knew less.

Besides, my point is that these ideas were once believed to be "a true depiction of the real world".

And their ideas failed, and ours succeeded, because ours are more accurate.

They weren't stupid. No more so than us, anyway. They were simply wrong.

I'm not claiming theoretical accounts are wrong, the example is interesting because we are talking about to very different things here. First, equations that describe the relative movements of objects with different masses and trajectories. Another is the claim about that gravity IS a force. My take? it can be described as a force, it matters zero what it is, because science is not worried about what things "are" but about how we can describe its behaviour.

That's correct. All that we have is behaviours. You seem to have missed the true implications of this.

In this sense, when I talk to somebody who claims that "X is Y" I know I'm talking to a naive materialist.

No, you make the unsupported assumption that you are talking to a naive materialist. If all we have is behaviours, then a thing is what it does. The statement is perfectly valid, in fact, the stament is demanded. It's just more subtle than you seem willing to believe.

Statements like "the world is made of matter" are pretty convicing when talking to some woos... but utterly absurd when discussing at a different level.

The world is made out of matter. Look, I can hit you over the head with it.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

This is true.

Yes, but difficult to understand. There are to many hidden assumptions when approaching to the subject without some philosophical training, specially regarding epistemology.

Evidence is evidence. Interpretation of it is a different matter. You seemed to be saying that some people wouldn't see it as "evidence".

Indeed this is what I say. Evidence is seen as evidence only if it is relevant and makes meaning within a context. If a determinate world view can include the new data without disturbing the rest, then it will be embraced. If it can't, a new paradigm emerges and a new world view is adopted.

New world views are conceptually different to their predecessors, and they tend to come with a new ontology, an often diminished point by those who doesn't like changes. They will argue that they always see it coming, and that in the end, "its all the same thing".

What is "wrong" is if one tries to actively exclude or dismiss the significance of a piece of evidence that is relevant to issues their world view covers.

Agreed, if this is a conscious effort in order to maintain things that are convenient for some groups.

And so you need world views. Yet which ones do you consider as worth considering, since the possibilities are literally infinite in number?

The ones I like of course. I could argue that the most encompassing ones. But then again, lets get back to creation versus evolution. Dinosaurs are explained with both theoretical frameworks, for the creationists they were planted by either god or satan, maybe to prove faith or something, for evolutionists they were animals that lived before humans. There is no problem for this two world views in accepting the facts as facts. Now, THE MEANING of such facts is what changes according to the world view you use to see them... this is a very important point.

So you still need to find some kind of more "objective" definition of what makes a belief "destructive", otherwise anything goes (even an axe murderer doing murders -- he can come up with some way to "justify" the behavior.). I would not say that religious beliefs are inherently destructive or non-destructive. They are what the believer makes of them. And the atheist can be as dogmatic and stubborn as the theist (note here that I use "atheist" = "believes that no gods could possibly exist or are extremely unlikely to exist", not just someone who lacks a belief they do exist.).

Thing is, the more I advance in my study of human beliefs, the more I understand that it is all matter of subjective interpretations and power. Groups in power will make their world views dominant. That's it. It is difficult to argue about which one is "better" because moral judgements are embedded in every world view, and they play a game of mutual exclution in most cases.

What else would you consider as beliefs "simply taken for granted"?

Mostly everything.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

That answers my question of whether you've heard anyone say that. The answer is yes, even though no one said it.

Thing is, maybe people is not always ready to take to its ultimate consequences what they say. I someone asserts "P is true because of Q" then there is no circumvention. When someone says "the world is made of matter" implicitly he/she is saying that the statement is true in every possible way. It is making sort of an axiom, something that can't be doubted. This to me, is to be absolutist, dogmatic, closed.

I can't say what the world is made of, all I know is that I'm typing this words listening to some music. My world is what I feel, sense, believe, see, touch, imagine, dream. Sure, there are a lot of nice "explanations" about lot of things that are observable from my world, but I take such explanations as descriptions of behaviors, not as reality. We continue to say "the sun rises" because we can understand the meaning of the words, not because we actually believe that the sun rises... in the same manner I have talked to scientists and critical thinkers who understand that "matter" is just a word, a concept, a decription.. not an explanation.

That our current ideas are basically sound and correct - in a way similar to how Newtonian gravity is - is nowhere near "there is really not much left to know... everything is more or less solved... the world... is a deciphered place." A foundation can be solid, but it's not a skyscraper.

Seems to me vague. What is "basically sound and correct"? In a thousand years, how much of what we know will be actually both sound and correct?

Now I know exactly where you're coming from. The religion that you adhere to - that there is no truth or real material world - dictates that anyone with a different opinion (or even a different strategy) is naive and obtuse.

Nope. Just the ones who ferviently hold that there is something like a real material world, or supernatural stuff, or some sort of woo. Yes, for me these are all the same.

I have no religion btw, I'm simply observing and trying to understand why humans believe, which are the mechanisms involved, and the reality of such beliefs beyond the human sphere.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

We know that our approach is correct and our knowledge is essentially sound because it works.

Really? The Ptolemaic geocentric model works; one can predict eclipses with it for instance. In your opinion then, that make it correct and essentially sound.

We know our knowledge is incomplete, but we also know that it is not significantly wrong.

Incomplete in relation to what?

Our entire modern world is built on science. Science works.

Sure, who denies this? fighting a strawman?

They knew less.

In relation to what?

And their ideas failed, and ours succeeded, because ours are more accurate.

In relation to?

They weren't stupid. No more so than us, anyway. They were simply wrong.

Wrong in relation to what?

That's correct. All that we have is behaviours. You seem to have missed the true implications of this.

Have I? You seem to believe (like many others) that we make maps about a real territory. The more accurate our maps are, the more they correspond to reality.

I believe that there are some behaviors, some facts, and that sometimes we relate to such facts in meaningful ways. No conceptual maps, no real territories, more like buoys in a dense fog.

No, you make the unsupported assumption that you are talking to a naive materialist. If all we have is behaviours, then a thing is what it does. The statement is perfectly valid, in fact, the stament is demanded. It's just more subtle than you seem willing to believe.

A thing is what it does? If I see a lion defecate, I will conclude that it is a defecating machine. This is what you are saying.

The world is made out of matter. Look, I can hit you over the head with it.

Your sense of humor is pretty peculiar.

 

[marplots]

"An IQ test primarily measures your ability to take an IQ test."

What a load of bullocks that is. So a calculus test measures an ability to take a calculus test? Sure, if you like naive tautologies.

An IQ test is trying to measure problem solving ability. Not just on the test, but more generally. Would a timed 100-meter dash just show how well someone ran 100-meters during a test, or would it more generally tell me that runner A is faster than runner B?

I'll grant that IQ is misused, but it isn't meaningless or as severely circumscribed as that false aphorism implies. The way to check it is to use another standard of performance and see if the people you identify along the intelligence spectrum with another method fall into the expected classes when they are administered the test. It passes the standard that astrology fails.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

With apologies for mixing Samuel Johnson with Sarah Palin...

The world is made out of matter. Look, I can hit you over the head with it.

I refudiate it thus?

Yes, Langan's "ideas" recall those of Bishop Berkeley^WP, with some important differences. Berkeley was far more cogent, and not always ignorant of the philomathematical infidel beliefs he ridiculed:

Berkeley’s criticisms of the rigor of the calculus were witty, unkind, and—with respect to the mathematical practices he was criticizing—essentially correct.

For all that, Berkeley's ideas have been less revolutionary than those of the men he attacked: Isaac Newton^WP, Gottfried Leibniz^WP, even Edmond Halley^WP.

 

[aggle-rithm]

"An IQ test primarily measures your ability to take an IQ test."

What a load of bullocks that is. So a calculus test measures an ability to take a calculus test? Sure, if you like naive tautologies.

This reminds me of an article from the "Daily WTF" that talks about the popularity of the interview technique whereby a prospective programmer is given puzzles to solve. This is done, in the sarcastic words of the article, because "studies have shown that, if you enjoy solving puzzles, then you will enjoy solving puzzles in job interviews."

If you take an IQ test repeatedly then your score gets better. It's not because you've gotten more intelligent.

 

[mike3]

Yes, but difficult to understand. There are to many hidden assumptions when approaching to the subject without some philosophical training, specially regarding epistemology.



Indeed this is what I say. Evidence is seen as evidence only if it is relevant and makes meaning within a context. If a determinate world view can include the new data without disturbing the rest, then it will be embraced. If it can't, a new paradigm emerges and a new world view is adopted.

And that is precisely how the scientific process works.

The ones I like of course. I could argue that the most encompassing ones. But then again, lets get back to creation versus evolution. Dinosaurs are explained with both theoretical frameworks, for the creationists they were planted by either god or satan, maybe to prove faith or something, for evolutionists they were animals that lived before humans. There is no problem for this two world views in accepting the facts as facts. Now, THE MEANING of such facts is what changes according to the world view you use to see them... this is a very important point. [/QUPTE]

And also, what you can and cannot do. For example, you can't design medicine with creationism -- you can do that with evolution. If you disagree, then explain how to design medicine with creationism.

Thing is, the more I advance in my study of human beliefs, the more I understand that it is all matter of subjective interpretations and power. Groups in power will make their world views dominant. That's it. It is difficult to argue about which one is "better" because moral judgements are embedded in every world view, and they play a game of mutual exclution in most cases.

And I take it that you'd also say that it can't be any other way than subjective -- in which case, there's nothing wrong with it being so, right? And since it's difficult to argue "which one" is "better", then there's no real problems with this system, is there (otherwise there'd be a clear argument for a "better" system), or at least not any that can be solved?

Mostly everything.

So how is evolutionary theory, for example, taken "for granted", despite the decades of research done into it?

 

[mike3]

Not true with any *definition* of belief i know of.

Not everything is a belief (aka, not everything is a matter of opinion, or a matter of conviction in absence of proof, or a faith). Thinking everything is a belief shows you don't udnerstand science, or you misappropriate belief to extend accepted definition.

Whose accepted definition? I've always though belief is conviction that something is true, regardless of its basis. Why can't a belief be based upon evidence?

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

And that is precisely how the scientific process works.

Science yes. People don't. This is my point. We are "hardwired" to be convinced in that our beliefs are sound and rational and correct. We all have this necessity "of being right". Every believer will argue (to the best of their capabilities) in to why and how what they believe is correct, and everything else is wrong.

And also, what you can and cannot do. For example, you can't design medicine with creationism -- you can do that with evolution. If you disagree, then explain how to design medicine with creationism.

I don't disagree. I believe that evolution is the best theoretical model yet, by far. At the same time I'm aware about it is incomplete, and there are some facts that are not explainable with the theory. Nope, that doesn't imply, in any possible sense, that the arguments of creationists are "better". (just in case a creationist is reading this)

And I take it that you'd also say that it can't be any other way than subjective -- in which case, there's nothing wrong with it being so, right? And since it's difficult to argue "which one" is "better", then there's no real problems with this system, is there (otherwise there'd be a clear argument for a "better" system), or at least not any that can be solved?

Knowledge is subjective, but there is something real beyond it. The more encompassing a theoretical model is, the more inclined I am to embrace it as a functional model. But I never equate a model with reality.

So how is evolutionary theory, for example, taken "for granted", despite the decades of research done into it?

People assumes is real, even when not everything is explained yet. The same goes for GR and QM. Both theoretical models are completely incompatible (if one is correct the other should be wrong) and yet, people embrace them both as good explanations about what reality "IS".

I believe we should stop at understanding, to our capabilities and needs, how reality relates to us.

 

[mike3]

Sorry, but you are living in a fairy-tale world.

We know that our approach is correct and our knowledge is essentially sound because it works. Einstein overturned Newton, but Newton was correct within his boundaries. We have pushed the boundaries much further out since then. We know our knowledge is incomplete, but we also know that it is not significantly wrong.

The prevailing views on the fundamentals of the universe's nature, however, which had up to that point been based off of Newton's views, were indeed "revolutionized", despite his models remaining useful for a certain range of scales. With relativity, space and time could no longer be considered as absolutes, for example, something Newton thought to be the case. And quantum theory gave another blow, to the idea of a "mechanistic" universe.

So I don't see why one should say no "revolution" could occur, unless you mean something else by that, like proving that a true perpetual motion machine can be constructed.

 

[mike3]

Science yes. People don't. This is my point. We are "hardwired" to be convinced in that our beliefs are sound and rational and correct. We all have this necessity "of being right". Every believer will argue (to the best of their capabilities) in to why and how what they believe is correct, and everything else is wrong.



I don't disagree. I believe that evolution is the best theoretical model yet, by far. At the same time I'm aware about it is incomplete, and there are some facts that are not explainable with the theory. Nope, that doesn't imply, in any possible sense, that the arguments of creationists are "better". (just in case a creationist is reading this)

There are no "complete" theories, and I'm not sure who's arguing there are. Do you have any example at all of the kind of thing you are arguing against?

Knowledge is subjective, but there is something real beyond it. The more encompassing a theoretical model is, the more inclined I am to embrace it as a functional model. But I never equate a model with reality.

Of course, objective reality exists.

People assumes is real, even when not everything is explained yet. The same goes for GR and QM. Both theoretical models are completely incompatible (if one is correct the other should be wrong) and yet, people embrace them both as good explanations about what reality "IS".

I believe we should stop at understanding, to our capabilities and needs, how reality relates to us.

So what does this mean insofar as acceptance of GR/QM goes? Since they work and let us build all kinds of technologies we use now, what's wrong with continuing their use? And I'm not sure what you mean by "stopping" at understanding that. What's wrong with continually asking more questions about everything and anything, and always going deeper? And making models of reality. Just as long as you never go to claim the model is the last word and absolute truth. Such models allowed us to make the technologies we have made now. Without that, we would not have developed any of it, including medicines that have saved countless lives.

 

[PixyMisa]

With apologies for mixing Samuel Johnson with Sarah Palin...

I refudiate it thus?

Yes. Johnson was entirely correct. And Berkeley's argument against materialism was circular (you can read it and spot the exact moment where he inserts his conclusion as an unstated premise).

For all that, Berkeley's ideas have been less revolutionary than those of the men he attacked: Isaac Newton^WP, Gottfried Leibniz^WP, even Edmond Halley^WP.

Well, of course his ideas were less revolutionary. For one thing, he was a philosopher, not a scientist or mathematician, so the odds were stacked against him having anything of value to say in the first place. And for another, he was wrong.

 

[PixyMisa]

The prevailing views on the fundamentals of the universe's nature, however, which had up to that point been based off of Newton's views, were indeed "revolutionized", despite his models remaining useful for a certain range of scales. With relativity, space and time could no longer be considered as absolutes, for example, something Newton thought to be the case. And quantum theory gave another blow, to the idea of a "mechanistic" universe.

So I don't see why one should say no "revolution" could occur, unless you mean something else by that, like proving that a true perpetual motion machine can be constructed.

Because any such revolution changes only our understanding, not the evidence. So it has to happen outside the evidence that is satisfactorily explained by current theory.

It's a "revolution of the gaps" problem - as scientific knowledge progresses, so there is less room for significant breakthroughs. Nothing we find is ever going to broadly invalidate relativity or quantum mechanics, because relativity and quantum mechanics work. Refine, extend, subsume those theories, sure. But if they were significantly wrong, we'd have known that decades ago.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

So what does this mean insofar as acceptance of GR/QM goes? Since they work and let us build all kinds of technologies we use now, what's wrong with continuing their use? And I'm not sure what you mean by "stopping" at understanding that. What's wrong with continually asking more questions about everything and anything, and always going deeper? And making models of reality. Just as long as you never go to claim the model is the last word and absolute truth. Such models allowed us to make the technologies we have made now. Without that, we would not have developed any of it, including medicines that have saved countless lives.

Who said there was something wrong? Of course, both theories are useful and in that respect we should continue using them. What I object is to hypothesize the nature of reality (its ontology), based on the postulates and elements of the theoretical models. We ascribe names for such elements, like "atoms", "quarks", "gravity", "time", but these are just pieces of theoretical models, concepts we use to describe in a meaningful and useful way what we are observing, nothing else.

 

[schrodingasdawg]

Who said there was something wrong? Of course, both theories are useful and in that respect we should continue using them. What I object is to hypothesize the nature of reality (its ontology), based on the postulates and elements of the theoretical models. We ascribe names for such elements, like "atoms", "quarks", "gravity", "time", but these are just pieces of theoretical models, concepts we use to describe in a meaningful and useful way what we are observing, nothing else.

Ah, so you're an instrumentalist when it comes to science?

I do sympathize with the stance, but I think the vigor with which some people promote it can be a bit dogmatic. Atoms and quarks are elements of theoretical frameworks with which we understand the world, yes. So are books and tables and chairs. That we even identify some aspect of reality as a so-called 'object' is itself a theoretical construct. That I call some aspect of reality a book on orthogonal functions is a theoretical construct; that I call some aspect page 172 of the book is a theoretical construct; that I call some aspect of reality the words and equations and graph on the page are theoretical constructs. They're all means of understanding reality, not reality itself.

And as true as this all is, I honestly would be annoyed if someone insisted that I was naive and obtuse for using such theoretical constructs and for insisting that they describe something real. I do think there's a point to be made in distinguishing our models of reality from reality itself, but once that point has been made, it really seems fruitless to drag it out.

 

[schrodingasdawg]

Berkeley’s criticisms of the rigor of the calculus were witty, unkind, and—with respect to the mathematical practices he was criticizing—essentially correct.

Yes, Langan's "ideas" recall those of Bishop Berkeley^WP, with some important differences. Berkeley was far more cogent, and not always ignorant of the philomathematical infidel beliefs he ridiculed:

For all that, Berkeley's ideas have been less revolutionary than those of the men he attacked: Isaac Newton^WP, Gottfried Leibniz^WP, even Edmond Halley^WP.

Man, I always find that old-style talk difficult to read through. Is it correct that he's critical of the lack of rigor, though? And would it be correct to assume that this criticism doesn't apply to the modern formulation of calculus, now that it is based on limits? Anyway, I ought to try tackling The Analyst in full some time... maybe later today.

 

[PixyMisa]

And as true as this all is, I honestly would be annoyed if someone insisted that I was naive and obtuse for using such theoretical constructs and for insisting that they describe something real. I do think there's a point to be made in distinguishing our models of reality from reality itself, but once that point has been made, it really seems fruitless to drag it out.

Right. It's a question that has been recognised and resolved. There is a theoretical model of the electron, but there is also an observable, measurable object - i.e. a set of behaviours - that conforms to the theory with enormous reliability. So we attach the same label to the model and the observations, and move on to doing something useful.

 

[mike3]

Ah, so you're an instrumentalist when it comes to science?

I do sympathize with the stance, but I think the vigor with which some people promote it can be a bit dogmatic. Atoms and quarks are elements of theoretical frameworks with which we understand the world, yes. So are books and tables and chairs. That we even identify some aspect of reality as a so-called 'object' is itself a theoretical construct. That I call some aspect of reality a book on orthogonal functions is a theoretical construct; that I call some aspect page 172 of the book is a theoretical construct; that I call some aspect of reality the words and equations and graph on the page are theoretical constructs. They're all means of understanding reality, not reality itself.

And as true as this all is, I honestly would be annoyed if someone insisted that I was naive and obtuse for using such theoretical constructs and for insisting that they describe something real. I do think there's a point to be made in distinguishing our models of reality from reality itself, but once that point has been made, it really seems fruitless to drag it out.

Agreed. There's no reason to go round and round on it. I'm not even sure what his point is supposed to be, except he seems to have some beef with some people he thinks see the theories as some kind of "absolute truth". And he hasn't said who they are, which makes it difficult to argue since one cannot see what exactly is being argued about and whether there really is a problem or not. Though he might be concerned that this could be construed as some kind of attack on them, so maybe it's best to just drop it altogether. Besides, it drags this thread off the original topic.

 

[Aepervius]

Whose accepted definition? I've always though belief is conviction that something is true, regardless of its basis. Why can't a belief be based upon evidence?

Belief CAN be based on evidence (or more to the point PERCEIVED evidence) ETA: but that is not the characteristic of belief, and that is not what was said, what was said is *everything* is belief, which is bollocks.

be·lief
   /bɪˈlif/ Show Spelled[bih-leef] Show IPA
–noun
1.
something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.
2.
confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.
3.
confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents.
4.
a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief.

 

[Cayvmann]

I have a second cousin who has a genius IQ and I helped my cousin raise her. Her abilities were discovered in kindergarten and I called her Whiz kid when I was babysitting her. Shes 23 now and I don't feel overpowered intellectually when I talk to her.

She married a artist who I suppose is never going to break out of tattoo art. She has a beautiful baby and appears to be a good mother. I sometimes wish she had used her deisel powered intellect to more practical use but if she had her perfect baby boy wouldn't exist.

She might be smart enough to see what's important. There is nothing wrong with being a very smart parent who is happy with her life.

 

[Dancing David]

"An IQ test primarily measures your ability to take an IQ test."

What a load of bullocks that is. So a calculus test measures an ability to take a calculus test? Sure, if you like naive tautologies.

Let me guess, do you actually know what an IQ test does measure?

An IQ test is trying to measure problem solving ability. Not just on the test, but more generally.

Oh really? Then where are the correlations to show that is true?

What kind of problems, certainly not social interactions problems or negotiations.

Would a timed 100-meter dash just show how well someone ran 100-meters during a test, or would it more generally tell me that runner A is faster than runner B?

Now who is being naive? Does that cover more than a hundred meter races, seriously?

I'll grant that IQ is misused, but it isn't meaningless or as severely circumscribed as that false aphorism implies.

Oh really, then what other meaningful behaviors is it associated with?
Which things does it correlate to more than 68%?

The way to check it is to use another standard of performance and see if the people you identify along the intelligence spectrum with another method fall into the expected classes when they are administered the test. It passes the standard that astrology fails.

Not really, you obviously have not researched it and are pulling the data out of thin error.

So what measure of performance does it correlate with, besides your imaginary ones?

 

[Dancing David]

Science yes. People don't. This is my point. We are "hardwired" to be convinced in that our beliefs are sound and rational and correct.

Somewhat of a false overstatement.

Do you know the difference between hardwiring and conditioning?
Your data and evidence?

We all have this necessity "of being right".

Well you certainly do, and how did you come to this conclusion? h personal opinion?

Every believer will argue (to the best of their capabilities) in to why and how what they believe is correct, and everything else is wrong.

Was there a sale on braod brushes today?

I don't disagree. I believe that evolution is the best theoretical model yet, by far.

And most people here will agree that it is an approximate model.

At the same time I'm aware about it is incomplete, and there are some facts that are not explainable with the theory.

Like what? Seriously, what? Explained or compatible. Who said that it explains all facts? Hmmm, was it you?

Nope, that doesn't imply, in any possible sense, that the arguments of creationists are "better". (just in case a creationist is reading this)



Knowledge is subjective, but there is something real beyond it.

Now who has messed up both epistemology and ontology, you just countered yourself and asserted you belief as truth.

It appears that there is something real does not equal there is something real.

The more encompassing a theoretical model is, the more inclined I am to embrace it as a functional model. But I never equate a model with reality.

Except for all the sweeping assertions you have repeatedly made in this thread. As in your first two sentence in this post.

People assumes is real, even when not everything is explained yet.

Keep over generalizing. First you were focusing on the poster here at the JREF and were rather rude about it, now you are over generalizing. Countering yourself again.

The same goes for GR and QM. Both theoretical models are completely incompatible (if one is correct the other should be wrong) and yet, people embrace them both as good explanations about what reality "IS".

Oh really, no they are not?
the fact that the combination of the two has not been successfully done does not mean that they are incompatible.
Sources, data and evidence. Or is your ego making all this up?

I believe we should stop at understanding, to our capabilities and needs, how reality relates to us.

I belive that you must have found a sale on poorly expressed overgeneralizations this week. I like you BDZ, but your posts in this thread are extreme and almost parodies of straw attacks.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Regarding George Berkeley^WP and The Analyst:

Man, I always find that old-style talk difficult to read through. Is it correct that he's critical of the lack of rigor, though?

Yes. Although his motives may have been religious or personal, Berkeley's criticism of Newton's and Leibniz's lack of rigor in their treatment of infinitesimals was correct.

And would it be correct to assume that this criticism doesn't apply to the modern formulation of calculus, now that it is based on limits?

Yes. Calculus had no mathematically rigorous foundations until the early nineteenth century, when Cauchy^WP, Bernard Bolzano^WP, and Weierstrass^WP introduced limits.

In 1961, Abraham Robinson^WP published the first rigorous theory of infinitesimals. In 1966, he published an entire book on the subject, Non-standard Analysis. From its preface:

In the fall of 1960 it occurred to me that the concepts and methods of contemporary Mathematical Logic are capable of providing a suitable framework for the development of the Differential and Integral Calculus by means of infinitely small and infinitely large numbers....The resulting subject was called by me Non-standard Analysis since it involves and was, in part, inspired by the so-called Non-standard models of Arithmetic whose existence was first pointed out by T. Skolem.

Jerome Keisler^WP wrote a calculus textbook based on Robinson's theory of infinitesimals; its full text is now freely available online.

 

[PixyMisa]

Fair point on Berkeley there; I haven't read that one, but I do know about the history of calculus and its early lack of rigour. However, Newton and Leibniz offered a ground-breaking mathematical tool, Cauchy and others made it rigourous, and Berkeley only pointed out a problem with it. He was right, but pointing out a problem is a lot easier than fixing it.

 

[schrodingasdawg]

In 1961, Abraham Robinson^WP published the first rigorous theory of infinitesimals. In 1966, he published an entire book on the subject, Non-standard Analysis. From its preface:

<quote in quote lost in quote-reply>

Jerome Keisler^WP wrote a calculus textbook based on Robinson's theory of infinitesimals; its full text is now freely available online.

That's pretty interesting. It actually seems fairly easy to grasp compared to the formal definition of limits, which makes me wonder why these hyperreal numbers aren't used more in high school level calculus.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Ah, so you're an instrumentalist when it comes to science? I do sympathize with the stance, but I think the vigor with which some people promote it can be a bit dogmatic.

Really? interesting. To be honest I don't know anyone else who sustain something similar. I see mostly materialists in this forum, some of them very comfortable with their level of understanding, and some willing to trash at every opportunity the unfortunate woos with a certain proud.

Atoms and quarks are elements of theoretical frameworks with which we understand the world, yes. So are books and tables and chairs. That we even identify some aspect of reality as a so-called 'object' is itself a theoretical construct. That I call some aspect of reality a book on orthogonal functions is a theoretical construct; that I call some aspect page 172 of the book is a theoretical construct; that I call some aspect of reality the words and equations and graph on the page are theoretical constructs. They're all means of understanding reality, not reality itself.

Indeed! And something that most people can't realize is that such constructs are arbitrary. Your last point is particularly important, theoretical models are not reality itself. Whats more, theoretical models do not say anything about reality (which I know is shocking specially for naive materialists). We deal with measurements and indicators, with perceptions and predictions, and we have learned to make use of some regularities, jumping from this to believe we know what reality is, well, naive.

And as true as this all is, I honestly would be annoyed if someone insisted that I was naive and obtuse for using such theoretical constructs and for insisting that they describe something real. I do think there's a point to be made in distinguishing our models of reality from reality itself, but once that point has been made, it really seems fruitless to drag it out.

Here is the thing, what are our models describing? And regarding why I believe it is of capital importance is that being clear in that there is a difference between our models and reality, we can go forward faster because bias will not get in our way.

Sadly, mayor advancements in science are frequently products of mistakes or errors, not creativity. I believe this is partly because people is so in love with their particular models that they will try to make the data fit, at all costs, in order for the theory to survive. Sure, science is open, but humans are not.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

There is a theoretical model of the electron, but there is also an observable, measurable object - i.e. a set of behaviours - that conforms to the theory with enormous reliability. So we attach the same label to the model and the observations, and move on to doing something useful.

I'm glad to read this, you have changed your point of view. Good.

 

[cj.23]

Gladwell gives an account of his life in Outliers. His IQ is that high, for what it's worth - at least twice mine i think (I'm about 100, average) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Langan

And yep, I'm not sold on his paper but too tired to read it tonight, and clearly too stupid to understand it

EDIT: And so tired i somehow missed four pages of this thread existing! Sorry!

cj x

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Agreed. There's no reason to go round and round on it. I'm not even sure what his point is supposed to be, except he seems to have some beef with some people he thinks see the theories as some kind of "absolute truth". And he hasn't said who they are, which makes it difficult to argue since one cannot see what exactly is being argued about and whether there really is a problem or not. Though he might be concerned that this could be construed as some kind of attack on them, so maybe it's best to just drop it altogether. Besides, it drags this thread off the original topic.

Agreed, it was not my intention to derail the thread.