Faith, Materialism, Evidence and Layers

[Suggestologist]

Suggestologist said:
The results of science (technology) work everywhere. Science can be conducted everywhere. The process of science works everywhere.

Well, science is not a single process. Some processes that call themselves science seem to produce things that help us manipulate physical reality, and social reality for that matter. Some processes that call themselves science don't.

So, for example, the interpretation of Quantum Mechanics is an agreed-upon "truth"? Sort of, although no one calls it truth (there is no truth in science) and everyone knows there are competing interpretations.

Yes, the interpretation is agreed-upon. When they can actually produce a product (like a quantum computer or something) that uses that technology, then the use, the utility -- is a physical fact, or produces physical facts. The theory isn't the "truth", it's a model. The utility of the model is determined by how well it allows us to manipulate realities. Like Randi in his Million Dollar Challenge, the theories don't interest me, I just want to see the evidence. If the evidence looks good, I can then consider the theory in good conscience.

So your confidence in the existence of Antarctica really is lower than your confidence in the existence of your house? (I assume you've not been there.)

Yes.

And why do you think that you should not have done that?

I never said that I should not have done that. I'm just suggesting that it's not science.

I bet you've never seen your heart. Do you have one?

~~ Paul

I've felt something beating when I exercise. That's personal experience.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Suggesto said:

Yes, the interpretation is agreed-upon. When they can actually produce a product (like a quantum computer or something) that uses that technology, then the use, the utility -- is a physical fact, or produces physical facts. The theory isn't the "truth", it's a model. The utility of the model is determined by how well it allows us to manipulate realities. Like Randi in his Million Dollar Challenge, the theories don't interest me, I just want to see the evidence. If the evidence looks good, I can then consider the theory in good conscience.

I've completely lost track of what we're talking about. If the theory allows us to produce technology, then the theory must be more than some willy-nilly agreed-upon story. An arbitrary story wouldn't produce results.

I never said that I should not have done that. I'm just suggesting that it's not science.

Sure it is. If scientists couldn't rely on each other's results without "experiencing them" firsthand, we'd never get anywhere.

I've felt something beating when I exercise. That's personal experience.

But it's not a heart. Is just a pulsing clock thing. You don't have a heart, or at least you shouldn't trust that you do.

~~ Paul

 

[Suggestologist]

Suggesto said:
I've completely lost track of what we're talking about. If the theory allows us to produce technology, then the theory must be more than some willy-nilly agreed-upon story. An arbitrary story wouldn't produce results.

I agree. But in order to know that it's not just a radically constructed (the technical equivalent of "willy-nilly made up") story, I have to have a way to verify some aspect of the story.

Sure it is. If scientists couldn't rely on each other's results without "experiencing them" firsthand, we'd never get anywhere.

That may be true. Scientists rely on each other's communications of experience, and that makes things easier for them. But this is a social structure, nothing more. The communication of experience is not the same as the carrying out of "scientific method". Otherwise we'd have to have controls for the disemmination process, and such.

But it's not a heart. Is just a pulsing clock thing. You don't have a heart, or at least you shouldn't trust that you do.

~~ Paul

I have the personal experiences that lead me to conclude that what I experience beating is what other people in society call a "heart" -- I have no personal word for the thing, but society does. I conclude this by evaluating the characteristics I experience with the characteristics the society has deemed to use the token, "heart", to represent -- so I use the social token when engaged in social communication. Would I have an increase in my belief that I had a heart (as presented in medical operation video), if I actually saw it? Yes. And so would you, if you saw yours.

 

[Silicon]

I think it's suggestologist's "degrees of belief" dogma that freaks me out.

What's wrong, suggestologist? Are you that afraid of coming to any conclusion, that you have to qualify your own belief in strange concepts as the existence of antarctica and your heart by percentages?

I have come to a conclusion on the existance of Antarctica. It exists. I require no more proof to believe in its existance.

Extrodinary proof would be required for me to reopen evaluation. I do not expect to see such proof in my lifetime.

Suggestologist, however seems to never come to a conclusion. What a foggy world of percentages of trust. Tell me, which is more real to you, the Mariana trench, or the existance of Radon gas?

(Here's a hint, they're BOTH real. Stop being so egocentric!)

Doesn't that seem silly to you?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Suggesto said:

That may be true. Scientists rely on each other's communications of experience, and that makes things easier for them. But this is a social structure, nothing more. The communication of experience is not the same as the carrying out of "scientific method". Otherwise we'd have to have controls for the disemmination process, and such.

If it were nothing more than a social structure, then it would become clear that the information being communicated was arbitrary gossip. We do have controls for the disemination process: journals, peer review, conferences, replication of received information, critical analysis of published papers, and so forth.

Did you get beat up by a roving gang of scientists or something?

~~ Paul

 

[Suggestologist]

I think it's suggestologist's "degrees of belief" dogma that freaks me out.

What's wrong, suggestologist? Are you that afraid of coming to any conclusion, that you have to qualify your own belief in strange concepts as the existence of antarctica and your heart by percentages?

I have come to a conclusion on the existance of Antarctica. It exists. I require no more proof to believe in its existance.

Extrodinary proof would be required for me to reopen evaluation. I do not expect to see such proof in my lifetime.

Right. And what you call "extraordinary" is a subjective evaluation. Based on personal experience.

Suggestologist, however seems to never come to a conclusion. What a foggy world of percentages of trust. Tell me, which is more real to you, the Mariana trench, or the existance of Radon gas?

(Here's a hint, they're BOTH real. Stop being so egocentric!)

Doesn't that seem silly to you?

It seems perfectly rational to not believe something I haven't experienced more than (or equal to) something I have experienced. Both Radon and the Marinara trench are have the same level of confidence of existence in my thinking. Both are less believed-in than the existence of my house and car.

I have no choice but to be "ego-centric", unless you'd like to lend me your ego?

 

[Suggestologist]

Suggesto said:
If it were nothing more than a social structure, then it would become clear that the information being communicated was arbitrary gossip. We do have controls for the disemination process: journals, peer review, conferences, replication of received information, critical analysis of published papers, and so forth.

Did you get beat up by a roving gang of scientists or something?

~~ Paul

Social structures, both scientific and non-scientific have the same problems. What was held to be a central cause of the Space Shuttle disintegration? "A culture of invincibility" at NASA. Why did the USA famously lose a certain space probe? Because the social structure of scientists failed to recognize that one was using the metric system and the other was not. Miscommunication.

Arbitrary gossip it is not, but science it is not, either -- to accept what others tell you as gospel.

Replication of received information, as I have stated before, does not mean that the methodology shows what it was intended to show. Only a personal experience based understanding of the subject could point out new types of methodological flaws, specific to the subject of the experiment.

None of the controls you name would be acceptable as a form of control within an experiment -- that those disseminated papers attempt to communicate. Except for replication; and that replication can only be done by personal experience by the reader/replicator.

Scientists kidnapped my dog and vivisected it.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

So to summarize, Suggestologist, you're saying that science is performed by human beings and mistakes are inevitable. I agree.

Only a personal experience based understanding of the subject could point out new types of methodological flaws, specific to the subject of the experiment.

You appear to be saying that we can't do science except by having scientists actually do the science. I agree here, too.

So I have no idea what's bugging you. If you don't want to accept anything anyone says except what you can experience yourself, be my guest. Sounds tedious and gruesomely error-prone.

~~ Paul

 

[Suggestologist]

So to summarize, Suggestologist, you're saying that science is performed by human beings and mistakes are inevitable. I agree.


You appear to be saying that we can't do science except by having scientists actually do the science. I agree here, too.

So I have no idea what's bugging you. If you don't want to accept anything anyone says except what you can experience yourself, be my guest. Sounds tedious and gruesomely error-prone.

~~ Paul

I haven't said that I don't accept it. I've written that I trust and believe more what I see with my own eyes than what I read in a scientific study. And that I probably trust the scientific studies less than most "skeptics" here seem (to me) to have indicated. That's all.

Some people seem to have deep-seated disagreement with this view. They seem to have read Karl Popper and his rejection of the primacy of personal experience.

A corrolary of my view is: If you really want to know whether something is real, whether something works, whether something makes any sense, go out and do it (as long as it's not dangerous) -- don't just sit around reading papers about it. Your belief in it really should (warning: prescriptive) go up when you do.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Suggesto said:

A corrolary of my view is: If you really want to know whether something is real, whether something works, whether something makes any sense, go out and do it (as long as it's not dangerous) -- don't just sit around reading papers about it. Your belief in it really should (warning: prescriptive) go up when you do.

This is fine if you want to replicate something. I'd just be wary of my own senses when noticing something odd or investigating something new.

Really, when your ex-wife thinks she was the Second Coming of Christ for two months, all this "primacy of my own experiences" stuff goes right down the toilet.

~~ Paul

 

[Suggestologist]

Suggesto said:
This is fine if you want to replicate something. I'd just be wary of my own senses when noticing something odd or investigating something new.

Really, when your ex-wife thinks she was the Second Coming of Christ for two months, all this "primacy of my own experiences" stuff goes right down the toilet.

~~ Paul

If that's true, then how did you know whether you were just hallucinating that your wife was hallucinating, rather than seeing the reality that she was hallucinating?

 

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Suggestologist

A corrolary of my view is: If you really want to know whether something is real, whether something works, whether something makes any sense, go out and do it

I think that's a terrific approach -- if your area of interest happens to be skateboarding.

don't just sit around reading papers about it.

Yes, reading can be tedious, can't it? But you seem willing to make an exception with regard to reading what has been posted on an internet forum, consistently applying your policy of rejecting everything others have to say. What I don't get is why you bother.

Your belief in it really should go up when you do.

Is that the goal?

 

[Interesting Ian]

I think that's a terrific approach -- if your area of interest happens to be skateboarding.

Yes, reading can be tedious, can't it? But you seem willing to make an exception with regard to reading what has been posted on an internet forum, consistently applying your policy of rejecting everything others have to say. What I don't get is why you bother.

Is that the goal?

Err . . Dymanic . .what's with the antagonism towards suggestologist?? I would have thought if you were going to be hostile towards anyone it would be me ( being a "believer" and a non-materialist and being rude to boot).

 

[Suggestologist]

Err . . Dymanic . .what's with the antagonism towards suggestologist?? I would have thought if you were going to be hostile towards anyone it would be me ( being a "believer" and a non-materialist and being rude to boot).

Hey, the only reason I get on these kinds of forums is to get people mad. Stop trying to cut in on my action here.

 

[Suggestologist]

I think that's a terrific approach -- if your area of interest happens to be skateboarding.

Yes, reading can be tedious, can't it? But you seem willing to make an exception with regard to reading what has been posted on an internet forum, consistently applying your policy of rejecting everything others have to say. What I don't get is why you bother.

Is that the goal?

It's the approach for anything that can be tested without expensive equipment, without more than the usual amount of physical danger.

I really should have written that if you do it, your belief will either go up or down; but it will be more concrete; and you'll actually have a better understanding of what you're talking about here.

Reading is not doing, not getting in-touch with reality; reading is all in your head, the production of a hallucination.

 

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

I would have thought if you were going to be hostile towards anyone it would be me

I tried a couple of times, but you wouldn't take the bait!

Seriously, though, here's the deal.

I think you're a kook, and you bug me. But you're a kook who does his homework, and I respect that. You make me work. I hate to admit it, but reading your posts often involves googling and reaching for the dictionary. You're right, we don't agree on a lot of things, and your in-your-face style seems...excessive at times. But you are interesting, and I think some of your ideas have more merit than you get credit for around here. On one or two rare occasions, I have even seen you concede a point.

Suggestologist bugs me in a different way, because he seems to derive enjoyment out of just being stubborn, and continues to whip a dead horse just because he has so much invested in it. This is something I have to constantly be on guard against myself, and if it bothers me a lot when I see somebody else doing it, it's probably just that it reminds me too much of me.

I often learn the most from those I disagree with, but sometimes if you want to hear a guy's best stuff, you gotta get him riled up a little. (But then, who am I to tell you that?)

 

[evildave]

Evidence, I tell you! Evidence!

Of what, I'm not sure.

 

[Suggestologist]

Suggestologist bugs me in a different way, because he seems to derive enjoyment out of just being stubborn, and continues to whip a dead horse just because he has so much invested in it.

From my perspective, this implies that you neither understand my intent nor my method. And you shouldn't be expected to.

This is something I have to constantly be on guard against myself, and if it bothers me a lot when I see somebody else doing it, it's probably just that it reminds me too much of me.

So, by attacking me; you keep that part of yourself in check. I become a part of you. In your hallucination.

I often learn the most from those I disagree with, but sometimes if you want to hear a guy's best stuff, you gotta get him riled up a little. (But then, who am I to tell you that?)

You can't rile me up. So, you'll never hear any of my best stuff, according to you.

 

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Suggestologist

From my perspective, this implies that you neither understand my intent nor my method. And you shouldn't be expected to.

Fair enough.

So, by attacking me; you keep that part of yourself in check.

Right. I didn't say it was rational. Or virtuous. It's just an observation I've made about the way my head works. I think this has been referred to as 'projection'.

You can't rile me up.

I've noticed that, and that's another thing I respect. If you've been advocating your 'primacy of personal experience/international conspiracy of scientists' position for very long, you've probably developed a fairly thick skin already; if it's new, you're going to need to get one. Either way, I'd like to make it clear that it is your position on this that I question; the fact that you spend so much time thinking about these things automatically makes you something of a kindred spirit -- if we met in person, I'm sure we'd get along fine (as would Stimpy and Ian, I bet).

If I haven't heard your best stuff already, please feel free to lay it on me (I know you will). If I see anything I take exception to (which is likely), I'll try to do so in a more respectful manner.

 

[Suggestologist]

Fair enough.

Right. I didn't say it was rational. Or virtuous. It's just an observation I've made about the way my head works. I think this has been referred to as 'projection'.

To project is to see the world through the filter of yourself. It's a post-structuralist sort of idea, really.

I've noticed that, and that's another thing I respect. If you've been advocating your 'primacy of personal experience/international conspiracy of scientists' position for very long, you've probably developed a fairly thick skin already; if it's new, you're going to need to get one. Either way, I'd like to make it clear that it is your position on this that I question; the fact that you spend so much time thinking about these things automatically makes you something of a kindred spirit -- if we met in person, I'm sure we'd get along fine (as would Stimpy and Ian, I bet).

I developed a thick skin long ago, debating christians on BBS systems. And, I'm too much of a "psychobabbler" to allow myself to fall for other people's mind tricks.

If I haven't heard your best stuff already, please feel free to lay it on me (I know you will). If I see anything I take exception to (which is likely), I'll try to do so in a more respectful manner.

Well, I do require instigation in order to produce it; but not the kind you thought would work. I prefer to instigate others to instigate me in the way I want to be instigated. And that depends on my mood.