False skeptic dogma?: "Always open to new evidence"

[roger]

Theoretically, however, I cannot prove that it is impossible for me to have overlooked something significant yet unknown.

I don't get why you say that.

Take the statement: Rasmus is not made of smoke. You think there is some chance, even theoretical, that you could be made of smoke?

I'm talking smoke. Not some engineered smoke that is somehow made to coalesce and exhibit the property of solids, right down to how they chemically react. Smoke. The airy, particulate, insubstantial stuff that blows away in a light breeze. Smoke. You ain't smoke. Really. Have a friend try to walk through you. You're not smoke. I promise. That doctor you went to last week for your cough. She would have noticed if you were smoke. We can rule that idea out. It's a ex idea. It's pining for the fjords. Etc.

There's lots we don't know about smoke. There's lots we don't know about mammals. But we have ruled out that rasmus is smoke, because what we do know about smoke rules out the possibility. We need never re-examine the evidence on this point.

 

[CFLarsen]

I don't get why you say that.

Take the statement: Rasmus is not made of smoke. You think there is some chance, even theoretical, that you could be made of smoke?

I'm talking smoke. Not some engineered smoke that is somehow made to coalesce and exhibit the property of solids, right down to how they chemically react. Smoke. The airy, particulate, insubstantial stuff that blows away in a light breeze. Smoke. You ain't smoke. Really. Have a friend try to walk through you. You're not smoke. I promise. That doctor you went to last week for your cough. She would have noticed if you were smoke. We can rule that idea out. It's a ex idea. It's pining for the fjords. Etc.

There's lots we don't know about smoke. There's lots we don't know about mammals. But we have ruled out that rasmus is smoke, because what we do know about smoke rules out the possibility. We need never re-examine the evidence on this point.

And yet, light was once something else than it turned out to be (as of July 27th, 2008).

Whichever way you look at it, your argument is an appeal to ignorance.

 

[Piggy]

I want to see how far you want to take your stance.

Can homeopathy - with what we know today of science - be real?

How far I take my stance?

My stance is that the ONE rule is false dogma... in other words, that we cannot say -- and should not say -- that there cannot exist any claims about which we can reach a sure conclusion.

Whether or not homeopathy is possible or impossible simply does not get us anywhere toward answering the question of whether the ONE rule is valid or not.

My stance is certainly NOT that everything which superficially seems false must be false, or that we know everything right now so we can close the books on all cases, or anything like that.

There are plenty of cases where we have to say "We don't know", and those are the interesting ones.

Whether homeopathy in particular falls into that category or whether it doesn't... that's not important to the question at hand.

 

[roger]

Actually, all propositions regarding the physical world are a matter of "odds." [snip]
There is nothing explicit in analytical solutions to the Schrödinger Equation that expressly forbids all of the particles in your body from simultaneously tunneling to Mars, nor of the Earth from leaping out of its orbit.

You provided an example of a proposition that has odds. Piggy's statement was that not all propositions are a matter of odds.

And, I suggest that you are, like everyone, changing the scenerio, and then pointing and saying "look, change!". The truth of my claim that I am sitting in Virginia is not altered by the possibility that I could suddenly tunnel to mars. Right now I am in Virginia (or not). And we know what I mean by "I" - the substantive collection of atoms with a processing brain. One or more of my atoms may be tunnelling as I speak, and when we get to the quantum level we can't establish a surface for "me", but that doesn't change the assertion about a lump of meat sitting in Virginia.

You are making positive statements - the universe is nonlocal, etc. It's not probalistic that the universe in nonlocal, right? It's not a matter of "odds". Your statement that "nonlocality is real!" is either true or false, you would agree? I'm not asking you to agree (at this point) that we are 100% sure that it is true, just that it is either true or false. Schrödinger Equation does not change it into a matter of "odds". Nor am I talking about possible extensions to physics. "nonlocal" may not even be a meaningful term in some strange conditions - say two black holes colliding or something. I'm talking in measured space that we currently experience. As it turns out, we have studied enough to know that tunnelling happens. It really does, this is not a probabilistic statement, a matter of 'odds'. It has happened. We have observed it, designed for it (transistors and such), use it (electron-tunnelling microscopes). It exists. It happens. No "odds" attached. Odds for a specific particle tunnelling? Yes! 'odds' for tunnelling existing? No, we know it exists.

 

[Piggy]

We can.

I will not spend any time, money or effort trying to find out whether the earth orbits the sun. That case is closed. there are no doubts.

But if tomorrow someone does come up and can demonstrate to me that I was likely mistaken, I would re-open the case and look at it again.

Wouldn't you?

The problem with that question is that it's a false hypothetical.

In other words, it's yet another version of "If Santa Claus gave you a ride in his sleigh, would you admit he was real?"

We have to ask ourselves, "Is it possible that such a thing could happen?" because if it canot happen then we do not have to concern ourselves with the scenario, any more than we have to concern ourselves with questions like "If your mother were a bicycle, what would her tire pressure be?"

Bicycles don't have babies, so the question is nonsense.

So my answer is this: Because there is no doubt that heliocentrism is true, I can safely conclude that I will never encounter any valid evidence showing that the sun revolves around the earth. Therefore, a hypothetical situtation which assumes someone doing that is not a situation which I could ever encounter, and anything flowing from such a hypothetical is not anything I need to concern myself with.

 

[roger]

And yet, light was once something else than it turned out to be (as of July 27th, 2008).

There is no point in arguing with such dumb arguments. There are properties of light that we know - such as, it lights up things, you can't pick it up and roll it into a snowball in normal earth physics, you can walk through it, etc. There's lots we still don't know about light, but I assure you Rasmus is not made of what we call light. I can walk through light, but not Rasmus. That doesn't mean that there may be some state of light that is solid (actually, I think our physics precludes that, but am not sure), but I am not talking about that supposed "solid light". I'm talking light as we understand it now. He ain't made of it, and neither are you. Period.

 

[Piggy]

I think a lot of the current discussion seems to revolve around definitions or descriptions. These are critical to science and skepticism and often what changes in the face of new evidence. As a kid you might have believed in Santa Claus and perhaps latter found out that what you believed to be Santa Claus was just your parents or other family members. Basically the definition or description of “Santa Claus” changed from the stories you were told as a kid to your parents or even now yourself as an adult (I sign the Christmas gifts I give as “Danta Claus”).

I don't believe this is relevant.

It's been clear on this thread that when we talk about Santa we're talking about the guy at the north pole who flies around delivering toys from a sleigh.

You can't just redefine the problem away.

I've seen this done before with the flat earth question. Inevitably, someone comes up with something like, "Well, what if we discovered that higher dimensions are real, and in those dimensions...."

Doesn't matter, because that doesn't change the fact that the earth is a globe, not a disk, in the dimensions we're familiar with, which is what the example is about.

 

[Jimbo07]

And, I suggest that you are, like everyone, changing the scenerio, and then pointing and saying "look, change!".

hmmm... I think I actually said something to this effect earlier.

You are making positive statements - the universe is nonlocal, etc. It's not probalistic that the universe in nonlocal, right? It's not a matter of "odds". Your statement that "nonlocality is real!" is either true or false,

gnnnnn... I think I'm starting to get more confident about where my problem with this conversation lies.

i) Physical uncertainty: as in the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, detailing that no matter how good our instruments, no matter the arbitrary precision, we must always remain uncertain of certain physical, real, things.

ii) Scientific/Academic uncertainty: conclusions are only as good as the data they are based upon, and a rigorous statistical analysis, with proper detail of the uncertainty, therein.

iii) Conversational uncertainty: this is where Piggy's statements about laziness or dishonesty come in. If I am simply unwilling to commit to a position for the sake of conversation, then Piggy wins. Piggy might be willing to call my stance on God "lying," I call it "political."

iv) Definitional Certainty: it's what I've been trying to get at, and is probably more closely related to point iii), than points i) and ii).

v) Uncertainty due to lack of knowledge: in the general sense, none of us know the entire current state of knowledge.

ETA: essentially, I'm jumbling up all five points. Scientific uncertainty and physical uncertainty seem related, but I suppose it is a mistake to equate the two. Lack of knowledge and conversation, I suspect get mixed up a lot. Sometimes, scientific uncertainty is so extreme, that a lack of knowledge seems to be in play, etc.

 

[CFLarsen]

There is no point in arguing with such dumb arguments. There are properties of light that we know - such as, it lights up things, you can't pick it up and roll it into a snowball in normal earth physics, you can walk through it, etc. There's lots we still don't know about light, but I assure you Rasmus is not made of what we call light. I can walk through light, but not Rasmus. That doesn't mean that there may be some state of light that is solid (actually, I think our physics precludes that, but am not sure), but I am not talking about that supposed "solid light".

Careful, now. It depends on how close Rasmus' molecules are to each other.

If Rasmus' molecules could be dispersed - just a little bit - it would be possible for you to walk right through him. He would also be invisible, but that's another issue.

Do you exclude the possibility that we could disperse molecules this way?

I'm talking light as we understand it now. He ain't made of it, and neither are you. Period.

Yes - but that's not what we are talking about, is it? We are not talking about light as we understand it now, but about whether or not we can be talking about light in the future.

Is the speed of light constant?

 

[Piggy]

I think that the current state of the arguments here is highly supportive of the OP.

When faced with the fact that the ONE rule would stop us from affirming, without reservation, that the earth is round and not flat, that the earth revolves around the sun and not vice versa, and that Santa Claus is a myth, all the dodges begin.

What about other dimensions? (Irrelevant to the question about how things are in the dimensions we're talking about.) What if there's a mathematical model that can describe it that way within an abstract mathematical space? (Doesn't change the physical reality.) What if we're living in a Matrix? (Then we're in a matrix in which the earth is round and revolves around the sun and there ain't no Santa Claus.) What if you change the definitions? (Then it's not the same question.)

That kind of behavior is a red flag for a false dogma.

It reminds me of the assertion that the host becomes the body of Christ at the blessing. Trouble is, it still looks and smells and tastes like a cracker, not like flesh. Do the believers take that as evidence that their dogma might be wrong? Nope. Instead, they waste precious time and energy inventing excuses.

 

[Piggy]

That the universe is inherently probabilistic is a consequence of the study of Quantum Mechanics (and the very real technologies we have derived thereof). The probabilistic nature of the physical universe is strange, unsettling, but neverthless true, in any useable sense.

Are you saying that heliocentrism and Santa Claus are issues of quantum mechanics?

 

[CFLarsen]

It reminds me of the assertion that the host becomes the body of Christ at the blessing. Trouble is, it still looks and smells and tastes like a cracker, not like flesh.

Trouble is, it's a myth.

 

[Jimbo07]

Are you saying that heliocentrism and Santa Claus are issues of quantum mechanics?

[minor derail]
Of course, it would probably be most precise to say that heliocentrism is incomplete in describing the earth's position in the universe... and is absurdly wrong when placing the sun at the centre of the universe, although it was a step up from geocentrism.
[/minor derail]

Well, though I have the lack-of-knowledge uncertainty, and the conversational uncertainty, as far as my understanding goes:

Are you saying that heliocentrism and Santa Claus are issues of quantum mechanics?

Ultimately? Yes.

or as otheres have quipped in other threads...

Ultimately? Physics.

(We'd have to get into why classical objects tend to be observed to behave classically, etc. which I am inexpertly equipped to fully discuss)

ETA: in trying to sort this all out, I think that the issues of Santa Claus and heliocentrism are two different problems. Where I have confused domains of uncertainty, I think you are confusing domains of claims. One involves statements about physical properties, the other is a character whose physical icon (at least in North America) is known to be derived from Coca Cola advertising... aaannd for the sake of addressing this last point, The Snopes Article.

 

[roger]

Careful, now. It depends on how close Rasmus' molecules are to each other.

If Rasmus' molecules could be dispersed - just a little bit - it would be possible for you to walk right through him. He would also be invisible, but that's another issue.

Do you exclude the possibility that we could disperse molecules this way?

Oh, I agree completely. If you disperse his molecules, we could walk through him. But they aren't dispersed, are they? I absolutely agree that our understanding of physics will change, that things that currently seem impossible will become routine. But that is not the claim here. The claim is that merely some things can be ruled out now. I'm thinking a lot of it will come down to tautologies and definitions. For example, water is a liquid. "Waiitt a minute", you way. "Remember that ice in your coke last night? Well, roger, hate to break it to you, but that is water." But all you are doing is changing the scenerio. Allow me to refine my words to say "liquid water" and I am in like flynn. liquid and solids are different states, by definition. We may discover a new state -liqulid, that is a weird combination of the two, but I can state, positively, that liquid water is not solid. liqulid H2O may be solid, frozen H20 is solid, but liquid H20 is not solid.

So we have a start. We can proceed from there. We can design hydraulic systems. Sure, the system will break if it goes below freezing and the water freezes, turns into a solid, expands, and breaks the pipes, but we do know something about the properties of liquid H20. Like, say, it expands when frozen. Sure, go find a counterexample where it doesn't expand in some weird corner of physics, but that doesn't change what ordinarily happens in the ice cube trays in my freezer. H20 expands upon freezing. We know that. I did not state that H20 will always, in every condition, expand upon freezing. Just that it does. We do know that, because it has been observed. That will forevermore be a true statement about the universe, even though we may find conditions where it doesn't apply.

Yes - but that's not what we are talking about, is it? We are not talking about light as we understand it now, but about whether or not we can be talking about light in the future.

Yes, I am talking about now. I know that Rasmus is not made of airy particulate matter right now. In a day, who knows. I have made no claim about the future. Yesterday? Didn't see him yesterday. I am making no claim about yesterday. But right now? No, he is not smoke.

Is the speed of light constant?

Haven't a clue. Once again, I am not claiming that everything is knowable, only some things. I know Rasmus is not presently, at this instant, made of smoke. One nanosecond from now? Your guess is as good as mine.


I almost hit send, but then I think I get where you are coming from. Let's try this on for size. I completely agree with piggy that we know that the earth is round. We don't need to leave the door open on that point. But, I think you are suggesting, what if things change in the future? Suppose spacetime warps in such a way the earth ends up like a pancake. It that future, we'd better be prepared for the earth not being round.

I think in that sense I would have to agree with you. I can't think of anyway to prove that the universe's laws won't change. But, on the other hand, I don't see any need to reconsider evidence for the Earth being round within our current set of laws. That we have figured out. We know it is round. Tomorrow? Can't say. Today? We can say. Everything is still working based on the normal laws of physics, we know the earth must still be roughly round (more accurately, as defined by WGS-84). There is no room for the world to be currently stretched flat as a pancake. We'd be hearing about it on CNN (Japan is 1mm wide! At least 50 million dead, with the count increasing hourly!)

Can we agree on that? The earth isn't currently a paper thin pancake (go stick your finger in the ground to be sure it is thicker than paper, I'll wait). We don't need to consider evidence that as of 1330EST July 27, 2008, the earth was a pancake.

 

[Piggy]

I'm not a linguist, and so would need some help. What do you think of my idea of drawing the line at definitional statements? That is, if we assume the luxury of binary thinking, we can define the words "yes" and "no" or "square" and "circle" to mean mutually exclusive things. Similarly, then, I could define the words "real" and "imaginary" to mean separate things. I cannot say with certainty that there is no creature at the north pole (in fact, there are likely to be... you know... fish, penguins on vacation, etc. ), but I can define an "imaginary" creature, using the definition of imaginary as something that is not real, such that I know it is not at the north pole, because of the definition. We know that Frodo Baggins is an imaginary thing, because primary source material (the author himself) admitted creating him. I now say that it is Frodo Baggins that lives at the north pole.

I think you're saying the same thing about Santa Claus, but I want your opinion on my opinion about language, because I think that's where it lies, and not in a statement about physical reality.

Well, I've studied linguistics, but I'm not a linguist. I'm a rhetorician. Language is my field of study and my vocation. And I do not see this as a matter of definitions.

Of course, on close examination, all definitions fail and are ultimately circular.

But as long as we're on the same page with stipulative definitions, we can move beyond that and tackle the questions at hand.

So to me, yeah, we are talking about questions of physical reality. At least I am.

So I agree with you that Santa Claus is imaginary, and I'd go farther to say "purely imaginary", meaning that there's no physical ("real") thing in the world that corresponds to that imaginary entity.

The reason I say "purely imaginary" is that it's possible for imaginary things to also be real.

For instance, I can imagine a piece of space junk, a bolt with a number inscribed on it which begins with the digit 7, orbiting the earth. I just made that up. However, it's possible that there's something which really exists which fits that description.

But back to Santa Claus, my reason for saying it's not real is just a matter of observation (we actually buy the toys and put them out) and physics (what Santa Claus is supposed to do can't be done), and I don't tend to bring definitions into it.

I hope that answers what you were asking.

Btw, sorry for jumping on you earlier with the "trick" crack. I was being paranoid. I apologize for that. It was rude and uncalled for.

 

[Piggy]

Ultimately? Yes.

I have to disagree with you there.

I can't see any way in which quantum uncertainty could bleed over into the macro world to make it possible that Santa Claus is real or that the sun revolves around the earth.

 

[Piggy]

i) Physical uncertainty: as in the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, detailing that no matter how good our instruments, no matter the arbitrary precision, we must always remain uncertain of certain physical, real, things.

That's true, but it does not follow from there that we must be uncertain about all physical things, much less propositions which are false merely because they are self-contradictory, such as "Everyone who is taller than me is shorter than my twin brother who is the same height as I am".

Uncertainty in particular areas of inquiry cannot be used to justify a blanket statement that certainty is not ever possible.

ii) Scientific/Academic uncertainty: conclusions are only as good as the data they are based upon, and a rigorous statistical analysis, with proper detail of the uncertainty, therein.

Ok, but again, the existence of uncertainty in some cases is not justification for claiming that we cannot be certain about anything.

iii) Conversational uncertainty: this is where Piggy's statements about laziness or dishonesty come in. If I am simply unwilling to commit to a position for the sake of conversation, then Piggy wins. Piggy might be willing to call my stance on God "lying," I call it "political."

I'm actually fine with that. You and I have already agreed to disagree on that point because after long discussion we've gotten down to a disagreement on axioms, so we're not going to convince each other, and that's ok.

Which is (partly) why I say we should be open to discussing all kinds of claims, whether they are open cases or not.

But the OP isn't exactly about that. It's about stopping short of making definitive conclusions, regardless of the available evidence, simply on the grounds that we should -- for some reason -- accept the notion that valid, relevant new evidence (that is, evidence which could actually sway the case) could possibly crop up someday.

And btw, as roger pointed out, that's not necessarily the same thing as claiming that circumstances may change -- depending on the claim.

iv) Definitional Certainty: it's what I've been trying to get at, and is probably more closely related to point iii), than points i) and ii).

As long as stipulative definitions are agreed upon, this doesn't have to be a problem.

v) Uncertainty due to lack of knowledge: in the general sense, none of us know the entire current state of knowledge.

Fortunately, there are few cases in which omniscience is required.

 

[Jimbo07]

I can't see any way in which quantum uncertainty could bleed over into the macro world to make it possible that Santa Claus is real or that the sun revolves around the earth.

Hey, not fair!

You skipped right over my derail, picked up my glib statement, and ignored my last point!

I think Santa Claus and heliocentrism are two differnet problems. And yes, ultimately, I stand by the idea (not that the Earth occupies a fixed position at the centre of the universe), but that the Earth-Sun interaction is ultimately a product of the QM nature of the universe... and until our understanding changes... necessarily so!

 

[CFLarsen]

Oh, I agree completely. If you disperse his molecules, we could walk through him. But they aren't dispersed, are they? I absolutely agree that our understanding of physics will change, that things that currently seem impossible will become routine. But that is not the claim here. The claim is that merely some things can be ruled out now.

No, no. Piggy is arguing that some things can be ruled out forever.

I'm thinking a lot of it will come down to tautologies and definitions. For example, water is a liquid. "Waiitt a minute", you way. "Remember that ice in your coke last night? Well, roger, hate to break it to you, but that is water." But all you are doing is changing the scenerio. Allow me to refine my words to say "liquid water" and I am in like flynn. liquid and solids are different states, by definition. We may discover a new state -liqulid, that is a weird combination of the two, but I can state, positively, that liquid water is not solid. liqulid H2O may be solid, frozen H20 is solid, but liquid H20 is not solid.

But smoke is not a state. Smoke are particles of whatever that float in the conglomeration of elements that make up our atmosphere - what we call air. But all of those elements can be liquified and even solidified - if the state changes.

"Smoke" can also be the grime on your neck, after a long day in the sun. Nothing has changed about the smoke itself, merely what it is "in". You can even have "smoke" that is so solid that you can't walk through it.

Do you understand? Your analogy of you walking through smoke, but not Rasmus, isn't valid in this discussion.

So we have a start. We can proceed from there. We can design hydraulic systems. Sure, the system will break if it goes below freezing and the water freezes, turns into a solid, expands, and breaks the pipes, but we do know something about the properties of liquid H20. Like, say, it expands when frozen. Sure, go find a counterexample where it doesn't expand in some weird corner of physics, but that doesn't change what ordinarily happens in the ice cube trays in my freezer. H20 expands upon freezing. We know that. I did not state that H20 will always, in every condition, expand upon freezing. Just that it does. We do know that, because it has been observed. That will forevermore be a true statement about the universe, even though we may find conditions where it doesn't apply.

Wait, wait. Now you are talking about what "ordinarily" happens. But that only applies to what happens here on Earth - a very, very small place in the universe. When you go out into the great universe, things start happening in what we would think are very weird ways.

Yes, I am talking about now. I know that Rasmus is not made of airy particulate matter right now. In a day, who knows. I have made no claim about the future. Yesterday? Didn't see him yesterday. I am making no claim about yesterday. But right now? No, he is not smoke.

Not smoke as in particles-floating-around-in-the-air, maybe. But smoke can become denser than Rasmus.

Haven't a clue. Once again, I am not claiming that everything is knowable, only some things. I know Rasmus is not presently, at this instant, made of smoke. One nanosecond from now? Your guess is as good as mine.

Yes, the speed of light is constant: That's why E=mc2 is so important, because it shows how mass and energy are related.

But - in some cases, the speed of light is not constant.

Oops.

I almost hit send, but then I think I get where you are coming from. Let's try this on for size. I completely agree with piggy that we know that the earth is round. We don't need to leave the door open on that point. But, I think you are suggesting, what if things change in the future? Suppose spacetime warps in such a way the earth ends up like a pancake. It that future, we'd better be prepared for the earth not being round.

I think in that sense I would have to agree with you. I can't think of anyway to prove that the universe's laws won't change. But, on the other hand, I don't see any need to reconsider evidence for the Earth being round within our current set of laws. That we have figured out. We know it is round. Tomorrow? Can't say. Today? We can say. Everything is still working based on the normal laws of physics, we know the earth must still be roughly round (more accurately, as defined by WGS-84). There is no room for the world to be currently stretched flat as a pancake. We'd be hearing about it on CNN (Japan is 1mm wide! At least 50 million dead, with the count increasing hourly!)

Can we agree on that? The earth isn't currently a paper thin pancake (go stick your finger in the ground to be sure it is thicker than paper, I'll wait). We don't need to consider evidence that as of 1330EST July 27, 2008, the earth was a pancake.

No, no, no. It isn't a question of the laws of the universe changing. It's a question of whether or not we will discover new things about the universe.

Piggy says that there are some things that we have discovered that will never change. The history of physics prove him wrong.

 

[Jimbo07]

"Everyone who is taller than me is shorter than my twin brother who is the same height as I am".

Rough example, and demonstrably not true based on areas ii) and iii). Area iii), obviously, comes from the definitional statement (i.e. how "tall" is tall?). Area ii) is obvious, because given big enough error bars in your measurement, you simply can't make that statement at all... but meh, I don't want to spend too long on this one...

But the OP isn't exactly about that. It's about stopping short of making definitive conclusions, regardless of the available evidence, simply on the grounds that we should -- for some reason -- accept the notion that valid, relevant new evidence (that is, evidence which could actually sway the case) could possibly crop up someday.

This was the basis of one of my glib statements earlier. From either side, this particular argument is irrelevant to reality. If I retain an open mind, or not, evidence may come along that will beat me into submission, regardless of what I believe.

I think it boils down to whether the person you are talking to is just being a jackass, or not.

As long as stipulative definitions are agreed upon, this doesn't have to be a problem.

Oh geez... like that's never been a problem in arguments on teh internets!