To be right or to be wrong

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Another problem with this discussion is that some of us are taking "right" and "wrong" in the sense of true vs false (or factual vs non-factual). Some are taking it for moral value (like good vs bad or moral vs immoral).

You are correct. Im talking about true and false statements, like making reflections about a theory of truth.

The consensus is irrelevant to the truth-value of a proposition. I'd make the same assertion even in matters of taste or morality.

Is it? When the earth was considered flat, why would my opinion about it being flat would be considered false? Furthermore, why would my opinion about it being round would be truth?

I'm not so certain what you're talking about here. Can evidence change? Or do you mean more evidence comes to light that points a different direction (in which case the first evidence wasn't entirely probative)? Or maybe we were mistaken about the evidence (mismeasurement perhaps)? I dunno.

Flat earth, gravity as a force, the list goes on. Note that Im not discussing the utility of the theoretical approaches, just its underlying ontological assumptions.

This is also ambiguous (i.e. there are two ways your question can be taken). Obviously the conclusion taken for itself is correct if it's proven correct. But "am I right?" might be a question about methodology (like "is my thinking right?") In that case, you could be wrong even though your conclusion is correct.

Take my example about market analysts above. This is also a way to understand the way woos think. They "confirm" what they believe if a bad induction is made and the results "confirm" their expectatives. How can they be sure about the methodology they are using?

I never could understand the meaning of 4) unless you take the word "rationale" to mean an independent statement. (Obviously if it fails to prove the first statement, it can't be considered a good rationale for it.)

The good old circularity of our language?

 

[fuelair]

If you took that apple near a blue star wouldn't it be a different color?

No, it would appear to be because the light from a blue star does not carry
all visible light wavelengths and specifically would not have any in the red range to reflect from the apple. That would be an apparent change of color but not a real change of color. If you were born under the light of the blue star, that would be meaningless as a distinction - and would make it harder for certain aspects of optics to develop (that is an opinion, it is based on the idea that by receiving white light as well as IR and UV from our star we have the full range of visible (+) light to work with which life-forms under a blue star would not).


Fact is fact unless demonstrated to be wrong, not liking a fact does not make it a non-fact.
Opinion does not require facts - indeed, opinion does not require anything except its' existence in a persons brain. I do not need facts, assumptions, evidence, reasons , consideration(s), corroboration, support or anything else to have an opinion. Now, if you ask for a reasoned opinion, or a considered opinion -i.e. if you force restrictions - then the previous does not apply - but at that point, you have eliminated opinion to a controlled answer that may well not get you the actual opinion. One of the reasons I sometimes get testy when someone wants an explanation of an opinion I give, or tries to argue my opinion is wrong. If you ask my opinion and I give it don't harrass, if you only want opinions that match yours, don't ask anyone you can't be certain of.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Fact is fact unless demonstrated to be wrong, not liking a fact does not make it a non-fact.

But then again, by definition, if a fact is a fact until something else is discovered, how factual was the fact in the first place? Not liking a fact that its proven wrong, indicates that I was right all the time?

 

[clarsct]

There is an external, objective reality. It is the basis of my moral assumptions above.

Thought experiment:
You are lead into a darkened room, and sat down upon a chair. For extra security, let's say you are blindfolded. You are told to imagine a room, to every detail, and you are able to do so.

The room has no windows. The designers have all been shot. No one else has seen this room. But pictures have been taken, and they are in a sealed envelope.

Then someone from outside the room turns on the lights, and you remove the blindfold.

Will you see the room you've imagined? Will the room match the pics?


A story:
A true story, no less.

I used to work in an industrial facility. Big, heavy equipment was used, and sophisticated machinery. A new machine malfunctioned, and exploded. There was a guy working a few bays away that had a 7/8" bolt go through his head. We found the bolt and were able to trace the trajectory from the machine. We were able to tell the bolt came from the machine. But no one saw the bolt hit the guy. Many noticed, after the fact, of course, but our nerve impulses aren't good enough to trace a bullet in the air. We're too slow. So no one saw the bolt strike. Now, the bolt moved at greater than the speed of sound, so no one heard it. The guy had zero way of perceiving the bolt.

He died anyway.

It is a gruesome and sad story, I admit, but there is a lesson in it: Reality is what it is, regardless of what we think about it.

Before you say 'ancedotal', realize that it only takes ONE instance of non-percieved reality having a real effect to falsify the idea of a subjective reality. Subjective realities only change things in our own minds, not in the minds of others.


I can tell you an apple is red or green without ever seeing the apple.

 

[qayak]

Not liking a fact that its proven wrong, indicates that I was right all the time?

If a fact is proven wrong, it was never a fact.

This is why science relies on doubt. Scientists realize that our senses are fallable and allows for that. A scientific fact is different in that it not only relies on observation, it must stand the test of time. No matter how many times an observation is confirmed, it only takes one contradicting observation to falsify it.

Scientific facts are seldom, if ever, "true." They just span a range from probable, to very probable, to probably true. As any gambler will tell you, if you have to make predictions on future events, you should always make them using the most "likely" theory.

Science has several checks and balances built in that also help to weed out false ideas. The reason science has stood the test of time is that it works, and there is no other known system that works as well.

 

[Gurdur]

There is an external, objective reality. It is the basis of my moral assumptions above.

Funny.
You've been asked before TWICE for more info about the external, objective moral reality you've claimed to know, and you completely failed to answer.

BTW, you commit a glaring logical fallacy:
an external reality does not equal an external moral reality.
The old "is"/"should" lack of a logical connection.

I can tell you an apple is red or green without ever seeing the apple.

No, you make yet another fallacy here. You can only say "red" or "green" relative to:
1) the language used (and you would be amazed how much that can change things)
2) and relative to an agreed system of naming light wavelengths (see 1).

Cheers. But if you ever manage to come up with more actual info on the external moral reality of which you claim to know, I will be quite interested.

 

[clarsct]

Funny.
You've been asked before TWICE for more info about the external, objective moral reality you've claimed to know, and you completely failed to answer.

That thread needed no other derails.

BTW, you commit a glaring logical fallacy:
an external reality does not equal an external moral reality.
The old "is"/"should" lack of a logical connection.

Moral reality is something different from the OP, but I did not equate the two. I merely said that one is based on the other. If there is NOT a fixed external reality, then it would be foolish to speak of actions and consequences. What is good is simply what is good in the context of your own, internal reality and we fall into Ethical Egosim, a view I reject.

No, you make yet another fallacy here. You can only say "red" or "green" relative to:
1) the language used (and you would be amazed how much that can change things)
2) and relative to an agreed system of naming light wavelengths (see 1).

Cheers. But if you ever manage to come up with more actual info on the external moral reality of which you claim to know, I will be quite interested.

Of which YOU claim I know, you mean.

There is nothing mystical about language. It is a mean of communication. Without communication, in other words, if we do not agree on what certain sounds, letter, et cetera mean, then you, literally, have nothing to talk about. If you're speaking a different language to me, then you're speaking gibberish. If you want to know what I mean when I say 'Red', then go check the damned Crayon box.

It's like being around people who are high: "How do I know the color I see as Blue is the same color you see as Blue?"

Because we've agreed that X wavelength of light is blue. If you disagree, then you're speaking nonsensically, and we have nothing to talk about.

Communication and language is about agreement. Go Google 'Prototype theory' if you want to know more. Semantics is a fascinating science.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

There is an external, objective reality. It is the basis of my moral assumptions above.

I have no idea about why you talk about "moral assumptions". There is zero morality in this thread. Im talking (we are talking) about the correspondence between our words and concepts to what its "outside of them". That said, I agree in that there is more than our words and concepts, some can call that "an external objective reality" I prefer to say that its a noumena, but in the end is the same "thing".

Will you see the room you've imagined? Will the room match the pics?

No. And now I hope you can tell me whats was the point of this exercise? Im not an idealist, if that is what you were implying.

It is a gruesome and sad story, I admit, but there is a lesson in it: Reality is what it is, regardless of what we think about it.

No one is arguing the contrary. The point of the thread is to understand better what is the relation of our words and concepts to what you call "reality". Thats all.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

If a fact is proven wrong, it was never a fact.

I agree with your comments. What I have doubts about its precisely this relation about facts that are "truly facts" and facts that are considered "true facts". We can't know the difference, until evidence supports one or the other (assuming, for example, two different theories regarding a set of observations).

Now, this is only the tip of the iceberg. Sometimes the evidence can lead to conclude that both theories are "true", either because the evidence itself is inconclusive, or because there are simply not enough evidence to "finally" support one or the other. Quantum mechanics, astrophysics, economy models are good examples.

Now, the problem is deeper if we take in to the account that both theories have ontological implications, and that humans need to have ontological models to create complete worldviews.

Is the earth flat? Is it round? I would say that its more like an hypercomplex fractal. But, Am I right? New theories will come and our knowledge will be render false. Was it false all the time?

 

[qayak]

I agree with your comments. What I have doubts about its precisely this relation about facts that are "truly facts" and facts that are considered "true facts". We can't know the difference, until evidence supports one or the other (assuming, for example, two different theories regarding a set of observations). . . .

Is the earth flat? Is it round? I would say that its more like an hypercomplex fractal. But, Am I right? New theories will come and our knowledge will be render false. Was it false all the time?

This is why science uses checks and balances. Science is a process. It does not start with you or me, it started with the first scientist and will end with the last. Having said this, our facts are "the best available at the time."

If in the future we find one to be wrong, it was indeed wrong all along but that doesn't stop us from making reasonable predictions with it. (In most cases, it doesn't even bother a scientist because they are trained to live with doubt.) We may have some of the details wrong but if it gives reliable answers then it is best to use it until something better comes along.

Science is usually aware that there is a problem with an idea because there will be little anomolies or predictions that can't be made accurately after a certain point. It is recognized that there is something wrong with the idea and scientists begin looking at it closer to figure out if the idea needs to be modified or completely scrapped in order to account for the problem. A perfect example of this is Newton"s Laws and Einstein's Theory of Relativity. Newton's laws are simple to use for everyday things but begin to break down at the extremes. Einstein's theory accounts for the anomolies of Newton's Laws. This is why doubt is so important to science.

To bring this back into the discussion; doubt is the basis of much of the friction between science and religion but it is also the problem between science and philosophy. Science is based on the discovery of the truth through experiment and observation. Religion is based on knowing the truth no matter what. Philosophy is based on knowing the truth before any real advancement can be made. When the truth can't be known, philosophy stops. This is the point where science has to take over.

Out of all these, science is the only one giving huge returns on the time invested. It is the only system that does not get bogged down by dogma. It is the only one that actually works. Scientists have had to become the philosophers because the philosophers of old could not keep up and were still discussing things that had been proven wrong years before.

All of this because scientists dare to doubt.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

our facts are "the best available at the time."

Agreed. In fact, I believe that nothing else can be said. Still, humans have a tendency to think that (no matter the century they are living it) they really really really have it, the whole and ultimate "truth".

If in the future we find one to be wrong, it was indeed wrong all along but that doesn't stop us from making reasonable predictions with it.

Again, I agree completely. Thats the best we can dream to achieve.

Newton's laws are simple to use for everyday things but begin to break down at the extremes. Einstein's theory accounts for the anomolies of Newton's Laws. This is why doubt is so important to science.

Agreed. Why I dont share is the, how can I call it, "certainity" that most people have about what they know, its the truth, almost all the truth and nothing but the truth. Funny thing is that humans will believe this, no matter if they believe in religion or science.

Science is based on the discovery of the truth through experiment and observation. Religion is based on knowing the truth no matter what. Philosophy is based on knowing the truth before any real advancement can be made. When the truth can't be known, philosophy stops. This is the point where science has to take over.

Here I dont agree with you. I would say, if anything, that science is based on the constants it find. Science is not about "truths", but observational regularities and theoretical predictions.

It is the only system that does not get bogged down by dogma. It is the only one that actually works.

As a system, I agree. But the humans will always be dogmatic. Thats what I believe.

 

[clarsct]

I have no idea about why you talk about "moral assumptions". There is zero morality in this thread. Im talking (we are talking) about the correspondence between our words and concepts to what its "outside of them". That said, I agree in that there is more than our words and concepts, some can call that "an external objective reality" I prefer to say that its a noumena, but in the end is the same "thing".

Ah, but Gurdur was..

No. And now I hope you can tell me whats was the point of this exercise? Im not an idealist, if that is what you were implying.

My point is what is, is, regardless of what we think of it. Or how we speak of it.

No one is arguing the contrary. The point of the thread is to understand better what is the relation of our words and concepts to what you call "reality". Thats all.

Once again, there is nothing mystical about language. It is a tool. If there is no point of agreement, then all communication becomes moot. In other words, language is how we express our agreements about reality.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Ah, but Gurdur was..
My point is what is, is, regardless of what we think of it. Or how we speak of it...

... Once again, there is nothing mystical about language. It is a tool. If there is no point of agreement, then all communication becomes moot. In other words, language is how we express our agreements about reality.

Not sure about it. This presupposes a lot of things. I agree in that there is the noumena, independent of our concepts or language. Im a realist in that sense. Still, the relation that the language stablishes with "that" its not clear at all. I believe there is a mystery you have yet to discover

 

[qayak]

Here I dont agree with you. I would say, if anything, that science is based on the constants it find. Science is not about "truths", but observational regularities and theoretical predictions.

I disagree. Science is completely about truth. The process doesn't stop until the truth is known. What we most often see is a snapshot taken somewhere along the path taken to finding the truth.

In evolution, we assume that because we are here considering this process, we are the end result of evolution. Many people actually believe that evolution stops with us, that the goal of evolution was to create us and now that it has, it can stop.

In truth, we are just a snapshot of evolution. This is where evolution is at this point in time but there is nothing to let us believe that we are the end all and be all of evolution.

The whole of science is an ongoing process which will not stop until the truth is known, we get to a point where it is impossible for us to get closer to the truth for one reason or another, or we are no longer in existence to continue searching for the truth.

Truth is the end product of the scientific process. We are merely in the middle somewhere.

 

[qayak]

Once again, there is nothing mystical about language. It is a tool. If there is no point of agreement, then all communication becomes moot. In other words, language is how we express our agreements about reality.

I agree that language is a tool but it is a tool for expressing ideas. Communication becomes moot as soon as the meaning of words becomes more important than the ideas they were meant to get across.

Arguments over semantics are for people who are more afraid of being wrong than they are excited about learning something new.

 

[Gurdur]

That thread needed no other derails.

Ha ha. You claimed twice in that thread to an objective right and wrong; you've claimed it here; each time you are challenged on it, you simply cannot back up your claims.

... What is good is simply what is good in the context of your own, internal reality and we fall into Ethical Egosim, a view I reject.
Of which YOU claim I know, you mean.

I don't give a stuff what you reject, I want to see you trying to back up your claims.

There is nothing mystical about language. It is a mean of communication. Without communication, in other words, if we do not agree on what certain sounds, letter, et cetera mean, then you, literally, have nothing to talk about. If you're speaking a different language to me, then you're speaking gibberish. If you want to know what I mean when I say 'Red', then go check the damned Crayon box.

Don't babble.
Go read this instead, and actually learn something -- how colour spectra recognition and naming are organized in vocabulary in languages.

Communication and language is about agreement. Go Google 'Prototype theory' if you want to know more. Semantics is a fascinating science.

Now go and learn that prototypes are actually different and differently organized across different natural languages.

There is no such thing as an objective linguistic naming scheme for colours -- it's all relative to language used, as well as relative to other factors.

Oh, and apart from you actually learning something about comparative linguistics, getting back to your nonsensical claims on there being an absolute right and wrong; since you claim such knowledge, share it with us. Or admit you have no such thing except your own prejudices masquerading as a morality.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

I disagree. Science is completely about truth. The process doesn't stop until the truth is known.

So, lets read again some of the posts in the thread. For example, what can you say about if the earth is flat or round? Or about gravity, is it a force or a distortion?

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Communication becomes moot as soon as the meaning of words becomes more important than the ideas they were meant to get across.

Who knows, maybe what happens it that it exposes the limitation of those ideas. After all, ideas are just words that are put together in a fancy way.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Arguments over semantics are for people who are more afraid of being wrong than they are excited about learning something new.

Sorry to put it in this way, but these could be the worlds of a religious fanatic.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

double post