"We can't logically show that there is an outside word or that the sun will rise tomorrow..."

Topher
Topher's picture
Posts: 513
Joined: 2006-09-10
User is offlineOffline
"We can't logically show that there is an outside word or that the sun will rise tomorrow..."

"We can't logically show that there is an outside word or that the sun will rise tomorrow..."

I came across this statement recently. What logical fallacy is it making? It seems to be arguing from inductive uncertainty, although for this fallacy to apply does it require the person to go on to reject the proposition, rather than simply saying it cannot be logically proven.

The same person also wrote the following:

Quote:
My skepticism is not of the outside world, but of the role of logic in finding truth. At the most fundamental level, the outside world existing is logically no more justifiable than God's existence. That doesn't mean that they are equally true, or that an intelligent person should conclude that they are equally true. In deciding which is true, however, we must rely on our intuition and instincts, although that is not to say we should not think carefully about the matter. Even if I say that Christians have "the burden of proof" and that "occam's razor disproves creation", I am not really pointing to something I know to be logically true, but really to something that I feel intuitively to be true.


There seems something wrong about that line of thinking. It seems to imply that we ultimatly rely on our intuitiion/instincts.

"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring" -- Carl Sagan


LJoll
Posts: 61
Joined: 2007-05-30
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote: You

BobSpence1 wrote:

You missed the point that Occam's Razor is neither 'true' or 'false'. The proper question is whether it is a useful principle to decide between various theories or propositions which are all 'logically' consistent with other relevant, accepted data.

So the theory that minimises the number of additional assumed entities, attributes, otherwise unsupported ideas appeals to us, of course. This approach minimises the complexity of the total set of explanations we need to provide useful explanations of 'reality'.

By useful, I mean they allow us to design stuff which works, predict the way various things, processes, etc will change over time to an adequate degree of precision, as confirmed by repeated tests and/or observations. So we can design and construct ever more complex artefacts, and explore the Universe in ever more detail.

Of course, in principle, some alternative, vastly more complex, set of theories may prove to be equally 'accurate' and useful, and may even conceivably more accurately reflect 'ultimate reality', but that is really academic. Until a more complex idea can be devised which actually provides better more useful descriptions and predictions, it is eminently rational to run with the simpler set, if only because it is easier to manage and reason with.

There are rational reasons to reject theories that introduce more independent entities and properties that are not otherwise observable, because we have no independent way investigate those extra items.

If we assume intelligent agents like pixies or gods, then we have destroyed, in principle, any useful predictive power of the 'theory' until we come with an exhaustive psychological profile of such agents, IOW yet another theory is required, leading to a version of the 'infinite regress' problem. So in the absence of evidence pro or con these entities we are rationally justified in discarding theories with such elements, really because they are actually more complicated because 'agents' introduce a whole new layer of extra properties, ie those of the agents themselves. It is tempting foe Theists to see God as a 'simpler' explanation, but all they have done is wrap all the complexities inside a convenient label without actually explaining any of them, so it superficially looks like they are proposing 'one' entity.

So we don't actually require our theories to accurately describe ultimate reality, just that they reflect those aspects of Truth that affect us sufficiently well, even if only by analogy, to be 'useful' to us, in manipulating and exploring the world, and also to suggest ways to further refine the theories themselves. And of course not explicitly contradict some well-established observation.

So the 'problem' of whether a theory is ultimately 'true' we can safely leave to the philosophers. The simpler one, with equal explanatory power, is the one which will be more productive because it is easier to work with, why make it harder than necessary to make practical progress?

WTF is 'irrational' about this approach?

Yes, that's all very good, but by your own argument Occam's razor cannot be used to give a rational grounding to the principle of induction.

 

You seem to be misinterpreting my use of the word irrational. I do not mean irrational in the psychological sense. I am talking about philosophical reason.


Tilberian
Moderator
Tilberian's picture
Posts: 1118
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
LJoll wrote: Your

LJoll wrote:

Your arguments do not have a rational basis either. I'm just admitting that mine don't.

No, you are saying that some of yours do and others don't. You have said before that deductive logic forms a basis for rational beliefs.

LJoll wrote:

Your most important beliefs were formed instinctively and you've just tried to give it a rational structure to justify it.

You can't form beliefs instinctively. I think what you are trying to say is that instinct-level processes underlie all reason and thought. This goes without saying, and I agree. In fact, thought is reducible even farther to very simple electrochemical interactions. You are making the mistake of saying that because we can reduce reason to something else, reason is not reason. That's like saying a car is not a car because ultimately, it's all just nuts and bolts. 

LJoll wrote:

Instinct is far better than reason in a civilized society. If we lose our instincts and have to rely on reason we'd be blind. Every direction would look the same.

I totally disagree. I do not need to refer to instinct (ie my feelings) to determine that 2+2=4. 

If all our reasonable conclusions must agree with instinct, then why are we able to arrive a counter-intuitive conclusions using reason? The earth looks flat...according to you, shouldn't our reason be constructed so as to support this feeling? 

 You need to think more about what it means to be a civilized society before you say that instinct is a better basis for it than reason. Our instincts tell us to band together in inter-related tribal groups of about 100 people, establish a territory several miles across and fight to defend it against all rival groups. Based on instinct alone, there would be no cities and nothing to which one could attach the word "civilized."

This conversation is causing me to think we've spoken before. Are you an anarchist? 

LJoll wrote:

The fact that babies don't diffrentiate between opposing theories doesn't stop it being instinctive. Our instincts develop.

Babies (and adults) do not differentiate between theories using instinct. Instinct can't do that. I think what you are trying to say is that a baby's reason develops naturally to be able to choose between theories, and I'll agree to that. But because it develops naturally doesn't make reason the same as instinct.

LJoll wrote:

Common sense is not Occam's razor. They just happen to give similar results.

Occam's Razor is a formal description of something our common sense has told us for millions of years. This doesn't mean it isn't based on reason. Our distant ancestors had a very good reason for developing brains that could naturally use a crude version of the Razor - survival. 

LJoll wrote:

Well I didn't say that exactly, but the point is that I don't need an algorithm to asign probabilities.

Then that isn't reason and it isn't something that you could defend in discourse. If you come to me and say "I think you should accept that theory because I feel better about it" I'm going to disregard you entirely because your whole argument is based on a subjective impression that has nothing to do with me.

LJoll wrote:

Yes. I trust my instincts.

But there's no reason why anyone else would trust your instincts. So either agree that we need to use reason to have a discourse about this or go away. 

LJoll wrote:

You've misunderstood me. I'm not trying to put forward a rational argument showing that occam's razor is untrue. I'm trying to show that occam's razor cannot be shown to be true (or probable) from a rational argument.

And I've shown (repeatedly) that reason itself is impossible without use of the Razor. So what you are really asking for is a rational defence of reason. To which I respond that reason is necessary for life, and without life, all theories fail. Therefore any theory which tends to end the existence of the theorizer is ultimately self-refuting and incorrect. Not to mention a silly wank that no one should spend any time discussing or refuting. 

LJoll wrote:

You really have. I simply don't hold the views you are presenting as my own.

Then can I suggest that you tighten up your use of terms so that we all might understand what you are saying. I'm getting tired of having to read between the lines and interpret what you mean.

LJoll wrote:

Now distinguish between 'truth' and 'Truth'. This is quite important, because if your 'truth' isn't reallt 'True', why should we care about it?

Capital-T Truth is the mythological absolute Truth that is accurate in every respect and ultimately indisinguishable from the object it describes. It is perfect description, free of any error. It has never been observed and may very well be fictitious. it is unclear even how we would know should we come into possession of Truth.

Small-t truth is that which we can understand to be true. It is that set of axioms and knowledge which we find to deliver useful results and which resists refutation by rational means. It is those facts which are sufficiently probable to be correct that we would base any action upon them.  

Capital-T Truth is the one we shouldn't care about, because it is with God, ie it doesn't exist so far as we know. It is the abominable snowman of philosophy. We can imagine it and make guesses about it, but no one, anywhere, has been able to show that we can or do possess it. 

LJoll wrote:

Quote:
My invisible friend tells me that they do.

Well you're both wrong.

But you have no basis for saying that without using the Razor. 

LJoll wrote:

Then your argument is clearly circular. You used examples of absurd things to show that occam's razor is untrue and you used occam's razor to show that the same things are absurd.

Nope. I never tried to show that Occam's Razor is untrue. And the absurd things I present are known to be absurd in a number of ways, not just with use of the Razor. Are you really going to waste our time arguing that discarding the Razor doesn't lead to absurd results?

LJoll wrote:

I can agree that it's usually useful. I can't agree that you have any way of showing that arguments that make less assumptions are more likely to be true than similarly supported arguments that make more assumptions. That, you just feel to be true.

I'll repeat it to you again. The Razor is more than usually useful, it's necessary in order to draw any conclusion at all. If you want to argue that it's only our petulant desire for conclusions that drives our use of the Razor, fine, but as I said without conclusions we die and a theory that kills the theorizer is rather useless. 

Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown


Topher
Topher's picture
Posts: 513
Joined: 2006-09-10
User is offlineOffline
LJoll wrote:

LJoll wrote:

Topher wrote:
You've misunderstood the Razor. It doesn't tell us whether something is true or false, it only tells us what is more probable out of a selection of explanations for a given phenomena.

Why make such an utterly pointless post? You can clearly see that your objection is simply to a typing mistake on my behalf and doesn't really effect the argument at all. I meant 'absurd' not 'true'.

I guess you meant to say "Do you know that they are absurd because Occam's razor tells you" but my comment was directed to the bit in bold:

LJoll wrote:
Can you answer my question about how you know that certain propositions, that you use to support occam's razor,are aburd? Do you know that they are true because Occam's razor tells you, or do you know occam's razor is true because they are absurd?

 Which you then repeat in the next post:

LJoll wrote:
I'm trying to show that occam's razor cannot be shown to be true (or probable) from a rational argument.


It isn't something that is true or false. It's better ask, as Bob noted, whether it is useful. (hint: it is)

"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring" -- Carl Sagan


Topher
Topher's picture
Posts: 513
Joined: 2006-09-10
User is offlineOffline
Tilberian wrote: LJoll

Tilberian wrote:
LJoll wrote:
Tilberian wrote:
My invisible friend tells me that they do.

Well you're both wrong.

But you have no basis for saying that without using the Razor.

It seems that since LJoll claims he basis everything on his instincts it look like his only criteria for whether we are wrong is whether what we say and argue conforms to his feeling. If not, then I guess we're 'wrong'. Unfortunately for him almost all of his criticism rely on the concepts he is trying to disregard: Occam's razor, induction, etc. And furthermore, without reason we cannot even engage in discourse because without it all we get is individuals throwing out their feeling hoping someone else's feelings agrees with them.

"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring" -- Carl Sagan


LJoll
Posts: 61
Joined: 2007-05-30
User is offlineOffline
Tilberian wrote: LJoll

Tilberian wrote:
LJoll wrote:

Your arguments do not have a rational basis either. I'm just admitting that mine don't.

No, you are saying that some of yours do and others don't. You have said before that deductive logic forms a basis for rational beliefs.

My belief in the uniformity of nature doesn't have a rational basis. 

 

Tilberian wrote:
You can't form beliefs instinctively. I think what you are trying to say is that instinct-level processes underlie all reason and thought. This goes without saying, and I agree. In fact, thought is reducible even farther to very simple electrochemical interactions. You are making the mistake of saying that because we can reduce reason to something else, reason is not reason. That's like saying a car is not a car because ultimately, it's all just nuts and bolts.

Instinct is far better than reason in a civilized society. If we lose our instincts and have to rely on reason we'd be blind. Every direction would look the same.

I totally disagree. I do not need to refer to instinct (ie my feelings) to determine that 2+2=4.

 By instincts, I do not simply mean out beahavioural and mental reflexes. I mean things that aren't based in logic or reason. These are things that can and must be developed throughout our lives. For instance, Mozart didn't deduce or reason as to what would make a good symphony. He used his instincts to guide him. Now the fact that his insticts were guided by his culture and his experiences doesn't stop them being emotional instead of rational. In the same sense it is absurd to suggest that if we acted upon our instincts we'd all start throwing spears at eachother.

Tilberian wrote:
If all our reasonable conclusions must agree with instinct, then why are we able to arrive a counter-intuitive conclusions using reason? The earth looks flat...according to you, shouldn't our reason be constructed so as to support this feeling?

Our instincts can be fallable. I don't believe that all our rational conclusions must agree with instinct. We can reason on the basis of what we instinctively feel to be true, but we cannot say that those beliefs are ultimately rational.

Tilberian wrote:
This conversation is causing me to think we've spoken before. Are you an anarchist?

No. 



Before I respond to the rest of this post I'd like to make something clear. When I use the word rational, I mean 'on the basis on reason/logic' and by irrational I mean 'not on the basis of reason/logic'.

What do you define as rational? How do you distinguish between rational beliefs and irrational beliefs? 


LJoll
Posts: 61
Joined: 2007-05-30
User is offlineOffline
Topher wrote: I guess you

Topher wrote:

I guess you meant to say "Do you know that they are absurd because Occam's razor tells you" but my comment was directed to the bit in bold:

 

Which you then repeat in the next post:


It isn't something that is true or false. It's better ask, as Bob noted, whether it is useful. (hint: it is)

I just gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed you weren't making a circular argument.Stop trying to use induction to prove the value of occam's razor and then use occam's razor to solve the problem of occam's razor, because that is what you're essentially doing.


LJoll
Posts: 61
Joined: 2007-05-30
User is offlineOffline
Topher wrote: It seems that

Topher wrote:
It seems that since LJoll claims he basis everything on his instincts it look like his only criteria for whether we are wrong is whether what we say and argue conforms to his feeling. If not, then I guess we're 'wrong'. Unfortunately for him almost all of his criticism rely on the concepts he is trying to disregard: Occam's razor, induction, etc. And furthermore, without reason we cannot even engage in discourse because without it all we get is individuals throwing out their feeling hoping someone else's feelings agrees with them.

 I do not base everything purely on my instincts. I do not completely disregard reason. It would be especially strange for me to, considering that I study mathematics, physics and philosophy and know the fruits of rational thinking a lot better than some people might.

However, I do also acknowledge the limits of rational thinking. There are certain things we cannot know through the application of reason. In fact we do not use reason in deciding a lot of things. We have no choice but to follow what we instinctively believe to be true.

People keep accusing me of trying to argue that induction or occam's razor are plain wrong, whereas I am actually saying that they cannot be shown to have any value through reasoning (or empirical evidence).


Topher
Topher's picture
Posts: 513
Joined: 2006-09-10
User is offlineOffline
LJoll wrote:

LJoll wrote:
Topher wrote:

I guess you meant to say "Do you know that they are absurd because Occam's razor tells you" but my comment was directed to the bit in bold:

 

Which you then repeat in the next post:


It isn't something that is true or false. It's better ask, as Bob noted, whether it is useful. (hint: it is)

I just gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed you weren't making a circular argument.Stop trying to use induction to prove the value of occam's razor and then use occam's razor to solve the problem of occam's razor, because that is what you're essentially doing.

All I am saying is occam's razor is not something that is either true or false. Saying occam's razor is true/false makes no sense. The question is whether it is useful.

 

LJoll wrote:
I do not base everything purely on my instincts. I do not completely disregard reason. It would be especially strange for me to, considering that I study mathematics, physics and philosophy and know the fruits of rational thinking a lot better than some people might.

However, I do also acknowledge the limits of rational thinking. There are certain things we cannot know through the application of reason. In fact we do not use reason in deciding a lot of things. We have no choice but to follow what we instinctively believe to be true.

People keep accusing me of trying to argue that induction or occam's razor are plain wrong, whereas I am actually saying that they cannot be shown to have any value through reasoning (or empirical evidence).

 

I think you have an extremely narrow defintion of rational. Can you clarify how you are defining the term and give an example of how we can rationally know something.

"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring" -- Carl Sagan


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
LJoll wrote:

LJoll wrote:

<Long post from me>

Yes, that's all very good, but by your own argument Occam's razor cannot be used to give a rational grounding to the principle of induction.

You seem to be misinterpreting my use of the word irrational. I do not mean irrational in the psychological sense. I am talking about philosophical reason.

I was not using 'irrational' in psychological sense, but my understanding of the term is obviously different from yours.

FWIW, one dictionary definition of 'rational' is:

"the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic"

OK.

If:

choosing from alternative explanations/theories, which are all logically coherent and consistent with the available evidence, the one which is structurally least complex, and postulates fewer unexplained entities/principles, allows us to make best progress in constructing a useful framework to capture those aspects of truth most useful and comprehensible to us;

And:

We wish to make maximum progress in this task;

Then, it follows, LOGICALLY, that that criterion is the one we should adopt.

Let me put it another way:

If we individually or collectively wish to increase the explanatory power of our theoretical framework of knowledge, ie how well thay allow us to grasp with our intellect the way things interact at an ever more subtle level, then it follows logically that we should adopt those theories which make it easier for us to do so, as long they have equivalent explanatory power.

If that is not your wish, if you would feel happier juggling increasingly convoluted and baroque concepts and narratives in your head, then it would br 'rational' for you or that society to reject this approach. That is where one is more likely to be lead if you trust to emotions...

It seems to me you are laboring over a purely philosophical point, IOW something that is utterly irrelevant to actual knowledge and understanding, if not counter-productive to progress in those things, like most philosophy since the Greeks.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


LJoll
Posts: 61
Joined: 2007-05-30
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote: I was

BobSpence1 wrote:

I was not using 'irrational' in psychological sense, but my understanding of the term is obviously different from yours.

FWIW, one dictionary definition of 'rational' is:

"the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic"

OK.

If:

choosing from alternative explanations/theories, which are all logically coherent and consistent with the available evidence, the one which is structurally least complex, and postulates fewer unexplained entities/principles, allows us to make best progress in constructing a useful framework to capture those aspects of truth most useful and comprehensible to us;

And:

We wish to make maximum progress in this task;

Then, it follows, LOGICALLY, that that criterion is the one we should adopt.

Now show me what is not in accord with logic about that argument, or wrong with the premises?

No it doesn't. If both explanations made the same predictions, it would be true that choosing the simpler theory would prove to be more useful on a practical level. Yet there are an infinite number of theories that are underdetermined by our observations, which make an infinite number of different prediction. It does not follow that the theory that is simplest to use will prove to be the most useful. 


LJoll
Posts: 61
Joined: 2007-05-30
User is offlineOffline
Topher wrote: All I am

Topher wrote:

All I am saying is occam's razor is not something that is either true or false. Saying occam's razor is true/false makes no sense. The question is whether it is useful.

And you are assuming that because it was useful in the past it will, at least probably, be useful in the future. Thus you are assuming the validity of induction in an attempt to, eventually, prove the validity of induction.

 

Topher wrote:
I think you have an extremely narrow defintion of rational. Can you clarify how you are defining the term and give an example of how we can rationally know something.

 

I've explicitly stated that I'm using the word rational to mean 'on the basis of reason/logic' and irrational to be 'not on the basis of reason or logic'.

Can you explain what your wider definition of rational is? Can you explain how you distinguish between irrational ideas and rational beliefs? Can you show why rational beliefs are preferable to irrational ones?


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
LJoll wrote: BobSpence1

LJoll wrote:
BobSpence1 wrote:

I was not using 'irrational' in psychological sense, but my understanding of the term is obviously different from yours.

FWIW, one dictionary definition of 'rational' is:

"the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic"

OK.

If:

choosing from alternative explanations/theories, which are all logically coherent and consistent with the available evidence, the one which is structurally least complex, and postulates fewer unexplained entities/principles, allows us to make best progress in constructing a useful framework to capture those aspects of truth most useful and comprehensible to us;

And:

We wish to make maximum progress in this task;

Then, it follows, LOGICALLY, that that criterion is the one we should adopt.

Now show me what is not in accord with logic about that argument, or wrong with the premises?

No it doesn't. If both explanations made the same predictions, it would be true that choosing the simpler theory would prove to be more useful on a practical level. Yet there are an infinite number of theories that are underdetermined by our observations, which make an infinite number of different prediction. It does not follow that the theory that is simplest to use will prove to be the most useful.

If it makes exactly the same predictions, then it it will have exactly the same outcomes, and if it is simpler to use, then it IS more useful.

Now if something changes, we will then re-examine our options, and test the alternatives again.

Until that happens, what do you propose we do? Since by definition you are referring to some totally unpredictable change, both in when it might occur and in the nature of the changes, we have no basis for deciding in advance how we should make allowance for it.

So 'business as usual', in the absence of any possible alternative plan, or even evidence of such thing has ever happened, or is likely to happen, is a totally rational strategy.

And I massively agree with the point that the practical truth is the one which, virtually by definition, is the one we should, and normally do, care about.

Sounds like you have been reading way too much philosophy. 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


LJoll
Posts: 61
Joined: 2007-05-30
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
[

If it makes exactly the same predictions, then it it will have exactly the same outcomes, and if it is simpler to use, then it IS more useful.

Now if something changes, we will then re-examine our options, and test the alternatives again.

Until that happens, what do you propose we do? Since by definition you are referring to some totally unpredictable change, both in when it might occur and in the nature of the changes, we have no basis for deciding in advance how we should make allowance for it.

So 'business as usual', in the absence of any possible alternative plan, or even evidence of such thing has ever happened, or is likely to happen, is a totally rational strategy.

And I massively agree with the point that the practical truth is the one which, virtually by definition, is the one we should, and normally do, care about.

Sounds like you have been reading way too much philosophy.

But business as usual is not a logical conclusion. It is just the acceptance that logic can't tell us what we should do and that we don't really have any choice but to carry on as usual, rational or not.

 

I've already shown that we can't rationally say that the laws being the same tomorrow is more likely than anything else, so you can't say that business as usual is the rational thing to do. It's just instinctively the obvious thing to do.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
LJoll wrote:

LJoll wrote:

But business as usual is not a logical conclusion. It is just the acceptance that logic can't tell us what we should do and that we don't really have any choice but to carry on as usual, rational or not.

Which most emphatically a rational conclusion, based on available evidence, or lack thereof. Logic only has value to check for logical inconsistencies, it can only show that some conclusion must be false, it cannot show what is true. There is no logic showing that the decision 'business as usual' is wrong, therefore logic DOES NOT AND CANNOT show that such a judgement is 'bad', or even ill-advised, therefore it is not irrational. 'Logic' cannot show any more than this.

You would only be justified in saying this decision was irrational if it was explicitly more likely to lead to situations that we would find unpleasant than some other strategy. Reason tells us that we have no material evidence for our reason to act on, with regard to the speculation that something totally unprecedented and unpredictable may happen tomorrow, therefore it is reasonable not to take such speculation into account in reasoning about what to do next. Labelling such reasoning as irrational is a very peculiar use of the term, IMHO.

You continue to bang on with the same tired set of assertions without seeming to address our detailed counter arguments, it seems to me.

You say you accept induction, etc in practice, so all that we have established so far is that you are obsessed over the problem of our decisions being not based on ultimate Truth, or perfect knowledge, or so0me such philosophical concern. OK, your instinct is to agonise over this, ours are that we don't care.

At the same time you do seem to be using some important words in highly idiosyncratic ways, so apart from questions of individual differences of outlook and 'instinct', I think we have a consensus that your reasoning is flawed, or at least only meaningful within the context of your own particular set of instincts.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


evil religion
evil religion's picture
Posts: 232
Joined: 2006-10-20
User is offlineOffline
LJoll I think the entire

LJoll

I think the entire problem you are having is that you have an unreasonable cirteria for what the word "rational" actually means. I think you seem to be under the mistaked impression that the only rational thoughts are ones which have been decuced via logic. If this is your  criteria for what is rational then of course you see irrationality every where!

But this is not really what we mean by the word "rational". A rational is one that is held with good reason. This differentiates it from one that is beleived with no good reason. Now "good reason" can mean a number of things and could, in principle, mean things that we have not even thought of. There could, in principle, be other methdos for establishing how good a beleif is that are beyond us at the momment. But all the various methods for establishing whetehr a beleif is "good" or not have one thing in common. Namely that they work.

These methods, what ever they are, allow us to filter "bad" beleifs from "Good" beleifs. In other words they allow us to determine whcih beliefs we should or should not act upon. Now these methods are not fool proof but, on the whole, they deliver the goods and allow us to opperate in the world. Those methods that produce the results we label under the banner "rational methods" thos that dont we label irrational.

The method of faith for example is an irrational way to determine which beliefs are good or bad, true or false and hence beleifs held by this method are deemed irrational.

With inductive reasoning the beliefs gleamed in this way on the whole work out rather well and are useful. As such we label induction as a rational method and believe held via this process are labelled rational beleifs. Thsi is also true of deduction.

I don't think you can really analyise he inductive process much further than to say it works and it is part of what we mean by rational. You could atempt to do the same for the deductive process. What makes you think deduction will work? The answer is that it is obviously valid. I think the same answer can be given for questions about the inductive proces, its just obviously valid. It works so well and is so fundamental that to question it is to question reaon itself.


Topher
Topher's picture
Posts: 513
Joined: 2006-09-10
User is offlineOffline
evil religion wrote: LJoll

evil religion wrote:

LJoll

I think the entire problem you are having is that you have an unreasonable cirteria for what the word "rational" actually means. I think you seem to be under the mistaked impression that the only rational thoughts are ones which have been decuced via logic. If this is your criteria for what is rational then of course you see irrationality every where!

You're right.  Here is how he is using the term:

LJoll wrote:
Topher wrote:
You say you define rational as 'on the basis of reason'. Well this doesn't help at all as now we have to know what you mean by reason, so can you gives us the definition of 'reason' that you are operating under?

Logic.

"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring" -- Carl Sagan


mouse
Posts: 129
Joined: 2007-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Topher wrote: Since it is

Topher wrote:
Since it is only induction that is useful to everyday life, our observations, etc, and since you're denying induction actually tells us anything useful or logical, the instead we hold to inductive claims intuitively, based on what feels right, then what you are ultimately proposing is that our life--which is grounded in induction--is without any real knowledge or logical basis, that our everyday life is based on intuitive feelings. Surely you don't hold to this postmodern sounding notion?


Postmodern? Hume explained the problem of induction a couple hundred years ago.

Nothing that LJoll has said in this thread is controversial (or has been for at least the past few hundred years) , and in fact is laid out neatly in Hume's Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding.

Helpful summary of the problem of induction from Wikipedia:

Wikipedia wrote:

David Hume framed the problem in An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, §§4.1.20-27, §§4.2.28-33.[1] Among his arguments, Hume asserted there is no logical necessity that the future will resemble the past. Justifying induction on the grounds that it has worked in the past, then, begs the question. It is using inductive reasoning to justify induction, and as such is a circular argument. This logical positivist formulation of the problem would prove to be a tenacious counterargument to the use of inductive propositions. Further, even the largest series of observations consistent with a universal generalization can be logically negated by just one observation in which it is false. By Hume's arguments, there also is no strictly logical basis for belief in the Principle of the Uniformity of Nature. Notably, Hume's stated position on the issue was that instead of unproductive radical skepticism about everything, he actually was advocating a practical skepticism based on common sense, where the inevitability of induction is accepted (but not explained). Hume noted that someone who insisted on sound deductive justifications for everything would starve to death, in that they would not, for example, assume that based on previous observations of, e.g., what time of year to plant seeds, or who has bread for sale, even that bread previously nourished them and others, that these inductions would likely continue to hold true. Hume nonetheless left a lasting legacy by showing that there is no absolute certainty to any induction, even those inductions for which a contrary has never been observed. Bertrand Russell elaborated and confirmed Hume's analysis in his 1912 work, The Problems of Philosophy, chapter 6.[2] (see also: logical positivism)

  • Problem of Induction: We assume the next experience is to be like the previous.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction

 

Ethics and aesthetics are one
-Wittgenstein


Tilberian
Moderator
Tilberian's picture
Posts: 1118
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
So, according to Hume,

So, according to Hume, induction cannot produce absolute certainty.  I would add that there is no mode of thought that can do that, as demonstrated by the brain-in-a-vat problem.

However, also according to Hume, using induction to draw conclusions and guide behaviour is not only valid and rational, but necessary.

Therefore, atheists are not irrational in their induction-based beliefs, and can safely accuse theists of irrationality when they refuse to acknowledge conclusions that are based on correct use of induction. Certainly theists have no superior mode of reasoning to back up their claims.

So can we put this put to bed this claim that atheists are somehow acting irrationally when they use induction to support their claims? 

 

Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown


mouse
Posts: 129
Joined: 2007-02-21
User is offlineOffline
the problem here which i

the problem here which i think LJoll mentioned somewhere before is confusing the psychological connotation of rationality with the philosophical meaning.

Ethics and aesthetics are one
-Wittgenstein


Tilberian
Moderator
Tilberian's picture
Posts: 1118
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
LJoll wrote: People keep

LJoll wrote:

People keep accusing me of trying to argue that induction or occam's razor are plain wrong, whereas I am actually saying that they cannot be shown to have any value through reasoning (or empirical evidence).

P1 If you don't observe Occam's Razor and induction you die.

P2 It is reasonable to attempt to stay alive.

P3 It is reasonable to observe Occam's Razor and induction. (P1, P2)

  Or

P1 The proper use of reason is to arrive at correct conclusions.

P2 We cannot avoid error without the use of Occam's Razor and induction. 

P3 We must use Occam's Razor and induction to make proper use of reason. (P1, P2) 

 

Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown


Tilberian
Moderator
Tilberian's picture
Posts: 1118
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
mouse wrote: the problem

mouse wrote:
the problem here which i think LJoll mentioned somewhere before is confusing the psychological connotation of rationality with the philosophical meaning.

He was wrong about that. We are all referring to the philosophical meaning of rationality. He's also claiming that deductive logic is the only valid logic there is, and that nothing can be called rational that isn't defended through deductive logic. 

Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown


Tilberian
Moderator
Tilberian's picture
Posts: 1118
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
There's another thing that

There's another thing that bothers me about this so-called problem of induction: it assumes that we occupy a special place in time. We know, because we can observe, that every time someone in the past used induction correctly, it worked. What has changed between then and now? Why was it correct for them to make that assumption, but not us?

For those who might be tempted to point to our position in the present, rather than the past, and say that the present is somehow different, I would reply that we are not conscious of the present and never work within it. Our entire outlook, even when we are thinking as fast as we can, is situated moments behind our local "present," which is a one-dimensional point in time anyway and can't really be said to exist except in the most technical sense anyway. So we are here at our point in the past saying that we should make different assumptions than other people in the past.

So when the induction skeptic says "Yes, it worked before, but how do you know it's going to work next time?" I think the burden rests on the skeptic to show how "next time" is different from "last time." Obviously we are talking about two different points in time as measured from some relative point in the past, but there needs to be some explantion put forth for why the skeptic thinks that that difference alone (which is only an artifact of our perceptions of position and velocity relative to other things, not an absolute value) should act as a force on the workings of the universe.    

Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown


Topher
Topher's picture
Posts: 513
Joined: 2006-09-10
User is offlineOffline
Tilberian wrote: So when

Tilberian wrote:

So when the induction skeptic says "Yes, it worked before, but how do you know it's going to work next time?" I think the burden rests on the skeptic to show how "next time" is different from "last time." Obviously we are talking about two different points in time as measured from some relative point in the past, but there needs to be some explantion put forth for why the skeptic thinks that that difference alone (which is only an artifact of our perceptions of position and velocity relative to other things, not an absolute value) should act as a force on the workings of the universe.

I agree. The law of parsimony requires that we hold the state of the world remaining as it is unless we've a reason to the contrary (otherwise you'd have to argue from inductive uncertainty) and it is the induction sceptic who has to provide us with the reason for doubting induction. Simply asserting that we must doubt the uniformity of nature because we cannot ensure it is not good enough... it's arguing from inductive uncertainty.

Furthermore, we do not need to prove the uniformity of nature in order to be justified in assuming that is it. People tend to forget that the fact nature has always been uniform is evidence to the uniformity of nature. Of course, it doesn't ensure the uniformity of nature, so the evidence is tentative, but it is still evidence. This alone, I think, gives us a justification for assuming that nature is uniform and therefore a justification for induction.

"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring" -- Carl Sagan


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
And of course LJoll went

And of course LJoll went way off the deep end if claiming that there is 'no empirical evidence supporting the value of induction'.

How about Exhibit 1: the current state of Science and Technology.... 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Textom
Textom's picture
Posts: 551
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Slight mischaracterization

Slight mischaracterization there, Tilberian. 

The problem of induction doesn't say it is incorrect to make assumptions.  It doesn't even say it is bad to make assumptions--obviously assumptions are necessary for any kind of reasoning.

The problem of induction also doesn't say that inductive arguments are bad or wrong.   It also doesn't say assumptions are necessarily bad or wrong.  Clearly many inductive arguments and many assumptions turn out to be true.

The only thing that the problem of induction says is that it is not possible to know that an assumption is true.  You can know that it's false, but not that it's true.

The thing that puzzles me is why you guys are having a problem with this concept.  It's one of the fundamental principles of scientific reasoning: scientific claims can be known to be false (testability) but only have a *probability* of being correct. 

"After Jesus was born, the Old Testament basically became a way for Bible publishers to keep their word count up." -Stephen Colbert


Textom
Textom's picture
Posts: 551
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote: And of

BobSpence1 wrote:

And of course LJoll went way off the deep end if claiming that there is 'no empirical evidence supporting the value of induction'.

How about Exhibit 1: the current state of Science and Technology....

Gonna have to call pot and kettle here too, Bob.

If a Christian stepped up here in this forum and said, "we know the Bible is true because the Bible says so," we'd all be waiting in line to point out the circular argument.

But here you have seemingly claimed "Science is true because the scientific evidence says so" without apparently recognizing that it's precisely the same kind of reasoning.

I personally wouldn't agree with the statement 'there is no empirical evidence to support the value of induction,' because it's too imprecise ('value' by what standard?). But I would support the statement 'there is no definitive evidence to support the correctness of induction.' 

"After Jesus was born, the Old Testament basically became a way for Bible publishers to keep their word count up." -Stephen Colbert


Topher
Topher's picture
Posts: 513
Joined: 2006-09-10
User is offlineOffline
Textom wrote: Slight

Textom wrote:


Slight mischaracterization there, Tilberian.

The problem of induction doesn't say it is incorrect to make assumptions. It doesn't even say it is bad to make assumptions--obviously assumptions are necessary for any kind of reasoning.

The problem of induction also doesn't say that inductive arguments are bad or wrong. It also doesn't say assumptions are necessarily bad or wrong. Clearly many inductive arguments and many assumptions turn out to be true.

The only thing that the problem of induction says is that it is not possible to know that an assumption is true. You can know that it's false, but not that it's true.

The thing that puzzles me is why you guys are having a problem with this concept. It's one of the fundamental principles of scientific reasoning: scientific claims can be known to be false (testability) but only have a *probability* of being correct.



Me, Tilberian and Bob all understand this. Our is issue with LJoll is in his stating that because of this induction is therefore not rational or justified. That is what we are disagreeing with him about. I find it quite bizarre that you imply we do not understand the probabilistic nature of induction when it has been us all along who have been hammering the point to LJoll that induction is entirely based on probability. None of us is stating that can ensure the UoN or categorically prove an inductive claim, we are saying that just because we can't to that it does not mean induction is unreliable, or irrational, or unjustified.

Let mer ask you: do you think we are j`ustified in holding to induction? Do you think it is rational to hold to induction? If you do, the you disagree with LJoll too.

"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring" -- Carl Sagan


Tilberian
Moderator
Tilberian's picture
Posts: 1118
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
That's right, this whole

That's right, this whole debate only broke out because LJoll made some rather inflammatory remarks back at the start of the thread to the effect that atheists should stop trying to claim the rational high ground on theists when we use induction to back our claims. The upshot of what he's saying appears to be that the basis for inductive claims is just as arbitrary as the basis for faith-based claims...which is pure TAG.

I've been a little sidetracked in the discussion, though, because I really think that any logical proposition that leads us into the kind of egregious empirical error that the problem of induction does, points to a problem with the proposition and not the empirical evidence of our senses. I think the fact that induction has never failed, ever, totally trumps whatever game with language and math we are able to play that shows that it might fail, or that we should not have confidence that it won't fail. Making arguments from these kinds of games is a waste of everyone's time. I think a logician's energy would be better spent developing a new logic that eliminates the problem of induction.

I really fight the tendency of hairsplitting philosophers to define what we can say we know only in terms of what we can prove with a math formula. We know that which informs our behaviour. If we can bet our life on the truth of a proposition, over and over, and still keep on living, day after day, then in my books we are logically justified in holding to that proposition. Word games that say we aren't are just proof, IMO, of the flexibility of the human imagination and it's apparently infinite capacity for generating bullshit. 

Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown


Textom
Textom's picture
Posts: 551
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Tilberian: It's not

Tilberian: It's not accurate to say that induction has never failed.

Induction "fails" every time a scientific conclusion is proven wrong by new evidence. The repeated "failure" of inductive reasoning to produce correct results--and the new inductive conclusions that replace the failed ones--are the essential core of the scientific method.

So it's not just a word game. It's part of the basic operation of science. Accepting the problem of induction does not lead to errors--it leads to greater accuracy by revealing where otherwise valid reasoning has produced errors.

[edit]

In fact, one might even argue that the willingness of scientific reasoning to admit inductive errors and allow self-correction is what makes it *more* rational than systems that claim infallability.  A system of thinking that doesn't allow for the problem of induction isn't rational anymore--it's just dogma. 

Topher wrote:
Let mer ask you: do you think we are j`ustified in holding to induction? Do you think it is rational to hold to induction?

Sure. But those aren't the positions that I typically see put forward on RRS (present company possibly excepted).

If I saw statements that said:

-The preponderance of evidence suggests God does not exist

-According to the best evidence available, the most rational conclusion is that God does not exist

-If God exists, then he cannot exist as described.

...then I would have no problem. These statements are all 100% supportable in light of the problem of induction.

Instead, what I typically see are positions like these:

-There is no evidence that God exists, therefore he does not.

-The only possible rational conclusion is that God does not exist.

-God cannot be described, therefore he does not exist.

This second set of statements are not supportable because they disregard the problem of induction. They pretend to draw a conclusive result from inductive evidence, which goes against the basic operation of logic.

 

"After Jesus was born, the Old Testament basically became a way for Bible publishers to keep their word count up." -Stephen Colbert


Topher
Topher's picture
Posts: 513
Joined: 2006-09-10
User is offlineOffline
Textom wrote:

Textom wrote:

Tilberian: It's not accurate to say that induction has never failed.

Induction "fails" every time a scientific conclusion is proven wrong by new evidence. The repeated "failure" of inductive reasoning to produce correct results--and the new inductive conclusions that replace the failed ones--are the essential core of the scientific method.

So it's not just a word game. It's part of the basic operation of science. Accepting the problem of induction does not lead to errors--it leads to greater accuracy by revealing where otherwise valid reasoning has produced errors.

[edit]

In fact, one might even argue that the willingness of scientific reasoning to admit inductive errors and allow self-correction is what makes it *more* rational than systems that claim infallability. A system of thinking that doesn't allow for the problem of induction isn't rational anymore--it's just dogma.


Again, your missing the point here. No one is denying the tentative nature of induction, in fact we are highlighting it. The question we are discussing (which seems lost to you) is whether we are justified in holding to induction... is it rational to do so? We are saying it is. LJoll is saying it isn't. You seems to agree with us when you say that: "A system of thinking that doesn't allow for the problem of induction isn't rational anymore". So you agree that induction is rational, because to not use it would be irrational.

Textom wrote:
Topher wrote:
Let mer ask you: do you think we are j`ustified in holding to induction? Do you think it is rational to hold to induction?

Sure. But those aren't the positions that I typically see put forward on RRS (present company possibly excepted).

If I saw statements that said:

-The preponderance of evidence suggests God does not exist

-According to the best evidence available, the most rational conclusion is that God does not exist

-If God exists, then he cannot exist as described.

...then I would have no problem. These statements are all 100% supportable in light of the problem of induction.

Instead, what I typically see are positions like these:

-There is no evidence that God exists, therefore he does not.

-The only possible rational conclusion is that God does not exist.

-God cannot be described, therefore he does not exist.

This second set of statements are not supportable because they disregard the problem of induction. They pretend to draw a conclusive result from inductive evidence, which goes against the basic operation of logic.


I'm gonna call strawman here. No one states this, and even is peope have said things similar to this, they do so tentativly. They are not asserting a dogmatic, closed conclusion, but rather a rational position that will change according to the evidence.

We tend to say things like:

- There is no evidence that god exists, therefore [it is justified/rational to hold that] he does not.

- The only possible rational conclusion, given the lack of evidence, is that god does not exist.

- The supernatural cannot be defined or describe (by defintion), therefore god claims relying on supernaturalism are incoherent

None of these statements are dogmatic/closed assertion. They are tentative conclusions based on the avaliable information.

"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring" -- Carl Sagan


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Textom wrote:

Textom wrote:
BobSpence1 wrote:

And of course LJoll went way off the deep end if claiming that there is 'no empirical evidence supporting the value of induction'.

How about Exhibit 1: the current state of Science and Technology....

Gonna have to call pot and kettle here too, Bob.

If a Christian stepped up here in this forum and said, "we know the Bible is true because the Bible says so," we'd all be waiting in line to point out the circular argument.

But here you have seemingly claimed "Science is true because the scientific evidence says so" without apparently recognizing that it's precisely the same kind of reasoning.

I personally wouldn't agree with the statement 'there is no empirical evidence to support the value of induction,' because it's too imprecise ('value' by what standard?). But I would support the statement 'there is no definitive evidence to support the correctness of induction.'

I am not claiming science is 'true'.

I am not saying induction is 'correct'. It really is just a formal description of the fundamental process of reasoning about 'real-world', non definitional/deductive, observations to come up with conclusions which allow us to generally make some progress in achieving our goals.

I am saying we have empirical evidence, in the shape of all the massive growth in our ability to provide frameworks which relate many areas of observation into relatively reliable and useful explanations of the way external reality seems to behave. These explanations (theories) match reality sufficiently well for us to have achieved massive technological change and ability to do things people only a century back could not even imagine.

I consider this is empirical evidence that the inductive reasoning process on which these disciplines is based are effective and useful.

I said nothing specifically about strict logical justification. You can obfuscate with appeals to philosophy all you like. There is nothing irrational about this process. It is philosophy which is an inadequate reflection of reality.

If we had to make caveats about every statement which has some minor degree of uncertainty, we would immensely increase the verbiage, to no good purpose. Instead we should assume that when we make a positive, non-qualified statement in other that the strictest debating context, we are assuming it will be understood that we are assuming it is true for 'all practical purposes'.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Tilberian
Moderator
Tilberian's picture
Posts: 1118
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
Textom wrote: Induction

Textom wrote:

Induction "fails" every time a scientific conclusion is proven wrong by new evidence.

I see this problem as being separate from the problem of induction we have been discussing. LJoll, as I understand it, has been arguing that we can't be certain that anything, even the most basic forces of nature, will work the same from one moment to the next, even given identical circumstances. He isn't saying that they will change because x,y and z will happen to change them. He's going farther and saying that our assumption of uniformity is baseless. To me, this means that the laws of nature could change spontaneously and without the presence of some added element or force that we've overlooked. The argument is that chaos may persist, we just haven't observed it so far.

What you are describing is a circumstance in which a conclusion is drawn based on incomplete data, then more data comes along to overturn it. Nothing in this suggests that the universe is anything other than orderly nor that anything works in any way other than the way we expect it to work. You are pointing to uncertainty, not a problem with induction.

I don't pretend to be a philosopher so maybe I'm wrong about which of these represents induction as it is commonly understood, but I'm just saying that these two things seem to me to very different. 

Textom wrote:

So it's not just a word game. It's part of the basic operation of science. Accepting the problem of induction does not lead to errors--it leads to greater accuracy by revealing where otherwise valid reasoning has produced errors.

The reasoning didn't produce the error — bad data did. There was nothing wrong with using the inductive processes that were used. The problem occured because the full degree of uncertainty was not understood and accounted for in the process of assigning a margin of error to the inductive conclusion. 

I think uncertainty and the problem of induction are two different things.

Textom wrote:

In fact, one might even argue that the willingness of scientific reasoning to admit inductive errors and allow self-correction is what makes it *more* rational than systems that claim infallability. A system of thinking that doesn't allow for the problem of induction isn't rational anymore--it's just dogma.

Agree with this.  

Textom wrote:

Instead, what I typically see are positions like these:

-There is no evidence that God exists, therefore he does not.

-The only possible rational conclusion is that God does not exist.

-God cannot be described, therefore he does not exist.

This second set of statements are not supportable because they disregard the problem of induction. They pretend to draw a conclusive result from inductive evidence, which goes against the basic operation of logic.

This frustrates me, and it's arguments along this line that have kept atheists dancing to the theist tune for a long time. Whenever we water down our rhetoric and kowtow to these niggling philosophical word games we accomplish nothing politically except to give theists hope that they have some loophole and to confuse fence-sitters into thinking we're losing the argument.

I think there is a difference between philosophical speech and political speech and this, being an activist website, tends to have a lot of political speech. Philosophical speech may be about what is strictly true, and therefore needs to be very precise and careful and technical  — similar to scientific speech. But political speech is supposed to address that which motivates us to action. And the fact of the matter, from the perspective of behaviour and real, living beliefs, is that all of those statements are true. No one can deny the truth of those statements by advocating their opposite and claim intellectual honesty.

 Things for which we have no evidence should not be deemed to exist. There should be no quibble about this and no need to qualify the statement. The technical point that we can't know is just that — a technical point born of endless, pointless navel-gazing. Not one single person out of the nuthouse actually lives as if there are real things around that we just can't sense, theists included. Oh, they say they do and they pretend to talk to invisible beings, but all these observances are carefully limited to areas of their lives where their "faith" can't really make any difference. They sure as hell don't rely on God when it comes time to punish sinners. They seem quite clear about the need to rely on their own, evidence-based, materialistically justified hands and eyes and tongues when it is time to do that.

The only possible rational conclusion is that God does not exist. Anyone who claims to harbour a rational belief in God is lying to themselves and others. Their belief in this regard is not held on the same rational grounds that they hold every other belief in their lives. They cannot explain why the God idea merits this special treatment, and when you really analyze their responses it always comes down to a set of irrational, wish-fulfillment motivations. I have not yet seen a rational argument for the existence of God that holds water, only appeals to faith and ignorance. Therefore, as far as I'm concerned, it is irrational to conclude that God exists.

If part of our definition of what it means to exist is that the object can be described, and if God fails this test, then God does not exist, pure and simple. If God is really an incoherent concept that can be shown to actually mean nothing, then God = nothing. Why would we back away from this stance, which is true every time we apply it to anything? Where is the value in noting that we have somehow fallen short of pure deductive truth, when we can use this truth every day and never be steered wrong? 

Don't get me wrong, I think it's great for philosophers to continue to try to wrestle with these questions, but an activist website needs to take the philosophy and turn it into language that will motivate action. You and I an everyone here knows that if you live your life as if those three points are true, you will not be in error. For political speech, that is the test and that is enough. 

Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown


Archeopteryx
Superfan
Archeopteryx's picture
Posts: 1037
Joined: 2007-09-09
User is offlineOffline
  *catches up*   In

 

*catches up*

 

In reading some of LJoll's posts on the previous page, it almost sounds like he is saying that in order for a position to be reasonable or rational, the position has to be correct. In order for our belief that the sun will rise tomorrow to be rational, for example, it first has to be certainly true (and proven to be certainly true) that the sun will rise tomorrow. In order for our belief that gravity exists to be rational, it first has to be certainly true (and proven to be certainly true) that gravity actually exists.

But human beings are clearly not omniscient, and it would be unfair to say that any position is irrational if the claim cannot be shown to be certainly true. It seems acceptable enough to say that a position is rational if the claim is made for a good reason.

Basically, what it looks like to me is that most posters are defending the position: "Better to assume true until there is good reason to think otherwise," while LJoll seems to be defending the position: "Better to assume false until there is good reason to think otherwise".

Whether you start by assuming X is true or by assuming X is false, you are making an initial assumption. It would seem rationality describes how you proceed from there.

Since most seem to agree that a claim can't be made with absolute certainty (aside from claiming your own existence), it seems more rational to go with "true until proven false". In other words, an algorithmic, process-of-elimination sort of search.

It stands to reason that some things must be true, even if we don't know what those truths are. The "probably false until shown to be true" approach seems more like a recipe for ignorance than its contendor.

 

Or am I missing the mark?

A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.


evil religion
evil religion's picture
Posts: 232
Joined: 2006-10-20
User is offlineOffline
Archeopteryx

Archeopteryx wrote:

 

*catches up*

 

In reading some of LJoll's posts on the previous page, it almost sounds like he is saying that in order for a position to be reasonable or rational, the position has to be correct. In order for our belief that the sun will rise tomorrow to be rational, for example, it first has to be certainly true (and proven to be certainly true) that the sun will rise tomorrow. In order for our belief that gravity exists to be rational, it first has to be certainly true (and proven to be certainly true) that gravity actually exists.

But human beings are clearly not omniscient, and it would be unfair to say that any position is irrational if the claim cannot be shown to be certainly true. It seems acceptable enough to say that a position is rational if the claim is made for a good reason.

Basically, what it looks like to me is that most posters are defending the position: "Better to assume true until there is good reason to think otherwise," while LJoll seems to be defending the position: "Better to assume false until there is good reason to think otherwise".

Whether you start by assuming X is true or by assuming X is false, you are making an initial assumption. It would seem rationality describes how you proceed from there.

Since most seem to agree that a claim can't be made with absolute certainty (aside from claiming your own existence), it seems more rational to go with "true until proven false". In other words, an algorithmic, process-of-elimination sort of search.

It stands to reason that some things must be true, even if we don't know what those truths are. The "probably false until shown to be true" approach seems more like a recipe for ignorance than its contendor.

 

Or am I missing the mark?

A bit. The positions are not equal in any way shape or form.

If we dont trust induction and dont use it we get very bad results in our decisions and tend to end up dead.

If we do use induction nd trust we might sometimes get things wrong but on the whole it works very well indeed. 

If our goal is to make good decisions and to not end up dead very quickly then the proven rational thing to do is to trust induction. There is simply mountains of evidence that induction works. So the "assumption" that it works is really a very stringly justfied belief. Its not really much of an assumption.

 


Archeopteryx
Superfan
Archeopteryx's picture
Posts: 1037
Joined: 2007-09-09
User is offlineOffline
evil religion

evil religion wrote:
Archeopteryx wrote:

 

*catches up*

 

In reading some of LJoll's posts on the previous page, it almost sounds like he is saying that in order for a position to be reasonable or rational, the position has to be correct. In order for our belief that the sun will rise tomorrow to be rational, for example, it first has to be certainly true (and proven to be certainly true) that the sun will rise tomorrow. In order for our belief that gravity exists to be rational, it first has to be certainly true (and proven to be certainly true) that gravity actually exists.

But human beings are clearly not omniscient, and it would be unfair to say that any position is irrational if the claim cannot be shown to be certainly true. It seems acceptable enough to say that a position is rational if the claim is made for a good reason.

Basically, what it looks like to me is that most posters are defending the position: "Better to assume true until there is good reason to think otherwise," while LJoll seems to be defending the position: "Better to assume false until there is good reason to think otherwise".

Whether you start by assuming X is true or by assuming X is false, you are making an initial assumption. It would seem rationality describes how you proceed from there.

Since most seem to agree that a claim can't be made with absolute certainty (aside from claiming your own existence), it seems more rational to go with "true until proven false". In other words, an algorithmic, process-of-elimination sort of search.

It stands to reason that some things must be true, even if we don't know what those truths are. The "probably false until shown to be true" approach seems more like a recipe for ignorance than its contendor.

 

Or am I missing the mark?

A bit. The positions are not equal in any way shape or form.

If we dont trust induction and dont use it we get very bad results in our decisions and tend to end up dead.

If we do use induction nd trust we might sometimes get things wrong but on the whole it works very well indeed.

If our goal is to make good decisions and to not end up dead very quickly then the proven rational thing to do is to trust induction. There is simply mountains of evidence that induction works. So the "assumption" that it works is really a very stringly justfied belief. Its not really much of an assumption.

 

 

Well, first, I wasn't trying to argue that the positions were equal. So I'm sorry if I didn't communicate that well. 

Second, I agree with you about the evidence favoring induction. But I guess I was trying to put the whole thing in a vacuum and forget about survival value and all previous evidence. Sort of like when your high school physics teacher teaches you about collision but ignores friction and whatnot to focus on a single aspect of the question.

If I had just come into existence at this precise moment (if I was a newly manufactured robot with sophisticated AI that had just been switched on at this very second, for example), and if I had to start making decision with no previous feedback to go on, which of those two positions would I choose?

I think in that scenario it would make more sense to accept your observed world as true until you have reason to do otherwise. It would be absurd to reject everything from the get-go and subsequently only accept what is absolutely certain. Nothing is absolutely certain. If someone really believed that position, they would be committing themselves to ignorance. If they backed down from that position and said, "Well, you don't need absolute certainty, just a lot of it," then they have necessarily converted to the other position.

We may want to verify that what we accept is true is actually true sometimes (well.. the bridge looks stable...), but it's ridiculous to be skeptical until there is certainty.

So my point is that even though induction may seem irrational by the fact that it may not necessarily be right in whatever it concludes, it is far more irrational to throw away induction altogether.

I understand what you're saying, though, too. The number of times it has worked before is good evidence, and until there is reason to doubt any of that evidence, it is rational to use it.

Like I was saying before, it's not necessarily whether or not your claim is true that makes you rational, it is how you go about trying to discern whether or not it is true.  

 So even though induction might not be right (even if it is completely wrong about everything!), it is still a rational means to knowledge.

 

Am I still missing something? 

A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Archeopteryx wrote:

Archeopteryx wrote:

 

It stands to reason that some things must be true, even if we don't know what those truths are. The "probably false until shown to be true" approach seems more like a recipe for ignorance than its contendor.

 

Or am I missing the mark?

I see the fundamental problem here that there are literally infinitely many things which may be true, so that is actually a recipe for a total intellectual log-jam.

It seems to a better use of our reasoning to assume (non-trivial) propositions to be false until some positive evidence suggests they make have something going for them - not necessarily 'true' either, that is not relevant, just not impossible, and having some minimal support.

This does not stop us speculating or hypothesising about possibilities, so it doesn't lead to ignorance. It is the mistake of the Theists to jump from a speculation that is particularly appealing to an assumption of its truth, without worrying about looking for evidence, or considering all the alternatives.

When approaching a bridge, scepticism would not point automatically to an assumption that it was not safe, only to a specific claim that it was 'perfectly safe' when there were other grounds to be suspicious, like the age and/or apparent state of disrepair. Skepticism would be just as appropriate about an assertion that a perfectly sound-looking bridge was on the brink of collapse.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
    About logic, thanks

    About logic, thanks for the OP, and all the replies, wow, ... this seemed on topic, but I am a slow learner .... interesting anyhow, from,

http://www.everythingispointless.com/search/label/god , "Mathematics & Madness I BBC website:

In this documentary, David Malone looks at four brilliant mathematicians - Georg Cantor, Ludwig Boltzmann, Kurt Gödel and Alan Turing - whose genius has profoundly affected us, but which tragically drove them insane and eventually led to them all committing suicide."

Dangerous Knowledge 1 hr 29 min http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3503877302082311448

[ me Notes: geezz, many people go crazy, simply because of aging etc. The film is about logic, not dangerous knowledge, that's a poor title, but a cool film - Boltzmann "The genius of disorder" - probabilities, not certainties - no order will last forever - limits of logic - the inigma - geez poor gay Alan Turing arrested and drugged - Godel, "prove intuition", starved to death, umm Buddha almost did that, logic unraveld itself, as the ancient tao said, "god" (all) is unknowable, cool ending ... eehh]

Try not to go crazy,(like me?) good luck, and thanks, .... for new thinkers here's , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning (((enjoy life, relax


Archeopteryx
Superfan
Archeopteryx's picture
Posts: 1037
Joined: 2007-09-09
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1

BobSpence1 wrote:
Archeopteryx wrote:

 

It stands to reason that some things must be true, even if we don't know what those truths are. The "probably false until shown to be true" approach seems more like a recipe for ignorance than its contendor.

 

Or am I missing the mark?

I see the fundamental problem here that there are literally infinitely many things which may be true, so that is actually a recipe for a total intellectual log-jam.

It seems to a better use of our reasoning to assume (non-trivial) propositions to be false until some positive evidence suggests they make have something going for them - not necessarily 'true' either, that is not relevant, just not impossible, and having some minimal support.

This does not stop us speculating or hypothesising about possibilities, so it doesn't lead to ignorance. It is the mistake of the Theists to jump from a speculation that is particularly appealing to an assumption of its truth, without worrying about looking for evidence, or considering all the alternatives.

When approaching a bridge, scepticism would not point automatically to an assumption that it was not safe, only to a specific claim that it was 'perfectly safe' when there were other grounds to be suspicious, like the age and/or apparent state of disrepair. Skepticism would be just as appropriate about an assertion that a perfectly sound-looking bridge was on the brink of collapse.

 

Oh, I see what I may have said wrong here. In the quotation you've cited, I've said that "false until shown true" is a path to ignorance, and yet, at the same time, I would say to a Christian, "I don't believe in your God because there is no reason to believe in your God."

 So taking my quote as it stands, I would be calling myself ignorant. True.

 

I don't think there is disagreement, I think I've just worded my post in a troublesome way that I no longer like. I've tried to put all claims up against the same rule, but what I'm essentially saying is this: reason (induction included) is a human faculty. It exists to assist humans in making decisions. Whether or not the human using induction comes to a decision that is true or false, if he is using induction well, then he is being rational. The truth of his conclusion has little to do with it.

As you've pointed out in your response, the theist tends to cherry pick the evidence he uses to inductively skip to his desired conclusion. But if he was to use induction responsibly, testing the conclusion against all offered evidence and being honest with himself, he would probably find that he is more agnostic about the question than he realizes. 

 The bridge is a bad example, I admit, in comparison to the question of a god's existence because the bridge spiel is all about secondary qualities and can be completely arbitrary (dangerous for a 300 pound man, but safe for an 80 pound child).

Take away all my prattling and blabbing and bad analogies, and what I'm saying is simply that if a person is being rational, it doesn't matter if his accepted conclusion is actually true, it only matters how he came to that conclusion and how he persists (or not, when appropriate) in holding to that conclusion.

It doesn't matter if the claim "the sun will rise tomorrow" is actually true. It only matters why a person would hold to that conclusion. If they came to that conclusion by making good and responsible use of evidence and if they allow for the possibility that they might someday be proven wrong, then they are rational. If they came to that conclusion irresponsibly (well, he told me that it will rise tomorrow, and he seemed like a smart guy) and don't allow for the possibility that they might be proven wrong, then they are being irrational.

If you were a doctor, it's not about whether the patient lives or dies, it's about how you conducted your practice, regardless.

If you were a judge or jury, it's (unfortunately) not about whether the accused is innocent or guilty, it's about how you go about making the decision.

Being rational is not necessarily the same thing as being right. So even though induction can be wrong, and definitely is sometimes, the conclusions made by induction can still be considered rational, even when they are wrong.

 Okay, hopefully I've got the kinks out.

Still problems? 

 

A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.


LJoll
Posts: 61
Joined: 2007-05-30
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote: And of

BobSpence1 wrote:

And of course LJoll went way off the deep end if claiming that there is 'no empirical evidence supporting the value of induction'.

How about Exhibit 1: the current state of Science and Technology....

 What about it? When I see current technology I do not see a universal, unchanging set of physical laws that will remain the same for all time. I see shapes and colours and movement. Can you explain how they are equivalent.


LJoll
Posts: 61
Joined: 2007-05-30
User is offlineOffline
Topher wrote: Me, Tilberian

Topher wrote:

Me, Tilberian and Bob all understand this. Our is issue with LJoll is in his stating that because of this induction is therefore not rational or justified. That is what we are disagreeing with him about. I find it quite bizarre that you imply we do not understand the probabilistic nature of induction when it has been us all along who have been hammering the point to LJoll that induction is entirely based on probability. None of us is stating that can ensure the UoN or categorically prove an inductive claim, we are saying that just because we can't to that it does not mean induction is unreliable, or irrational, or unjustified.

Let mer ask you: do you think we are j`ustified in holding to induction? Do you think it is rational to hold to induction? If you do, the you disagree with LJoll too.

 

You're as intellectually dishonest as any Christian. You accuse Christians in believing in a "God of the gaps', but you're a rationalist of the gaps. You assume that a gap in our knowledge will lead to evidence for what you intuitively believe to be true, if it is given enough rational scrutinty (which, while in theory you praise, you seem to deem superfluous in practice).

 

You're are the only one that keeps brining up certainty. You have a sort of faith that after absolute certainty is abandoned, all your instincts and beliefs will be shown to be the most rational thing possible. How do you justify, on the basis of reason and empricism, that the world will probably stay the same? How do you show that, while it may not be certain, it's a pretty safe bet?


LJoll
Posts: 61
Joined: 2007-05-30
User is offlineOffline
Archeopteryx

Archeopteryx wrote:

 

*catches up*

 

In reading some of LJoll's posts on the previous page, it almost sounds like he is saying that in order for a position to be reasonable or rational, the position has to be correct. In order for our belief that the sun will rise tomorrow to be rational, for example, it first has to be certainly true (and proven to be certainly true) that the sun will rise tomorrow. In order for our belief that gravity exists to be rational, it first has to be certainly true (and proven to be certainly true) that gravity actually exists.

But human beings are clearly not omniscient, and it would be unfair to say that any position is irrational if the claim cannot be shown to be certainly true. It seems acceptable enough to say that a position is rational if the claim is made for a good reason.

Basically, what it looks like to me is that most posters are defending the position: "Better to assume true until there is good reason to think otherwise," while LJoll seems to be defending the position: "Better to assume false until there is good reason to think otherwise".

Whether you start by assuming X is true or by assuming X is false, you are making an initial assumption. It would seem rationality describes how you proceed from there.

Since most seem to agree that a claim can't be made with absolute certainty (aside from claiming your own existence), it seems more rational to go with "true until proven false". In other words, an algorithmic, process-of-elimination sort of search.

It stands to reason that some things must be true, even if we don't know what those truths are. The "probably false until shown to be true" approach seems more like a recipe for ignorance than its contendor.

 

Or am I missing the mark?

 So far off the mark.  I'm not assuming that induction is false, I'm just asking how we can know that it is true. I've already said that I think that nature is uniform, although it was not the result of reasoning. Your proposition that we should assume that things are true until proven false is a complete disaster. It's not even tenable. You can't show that the coin I just flipped didn't land on heads and didn't land on tails. Does that mean that you are justified in beliving both? It's absurd.


Topher
Topher's picture
Posts: 513
Joined: 2006-09-10
User is offlineOffline
LJoll wrote: Topher

LJoll wrote:

Topher wrote:

Me, Tilberian and Bob all understand this. Our is issue with LJoll is in his stating that because of this induction is therefore not rational or justified. That is what we are disagreeing with him about. I find it quite bizarre that you imply we do not understand the probabilistic nature of induction when it has been us all along who have been hammering the point to LJoll that induction is entirely based on probability. None of us is stating that can ensure the UoN or categorically prove an inductive claim, we are saying that just because we can't to that it does not mean induction is unreliable, or irrational, or unjustified.

Let mer ask you: do you think we are j`ustified in holding to induction? Do you think it is rational to hold to induction? If you do, the you disagree with LJoll too.

 

You're as intellectually dishonest as any Christian. You accuse Christians in believing in a "God of the gaps', but you're a rationalist of the gaps. You assume that a gap in our knowledge will lead to evidence for what you intuitively believe to be true, if it is given enough rational scrutinty (which, while in theory you praise, you seem to deem superfluous in practice).

 

You're are the only one that keeps brining up certainty. You have a sort of faith that after absolute certainty is abandoned, all your instincts and beliefs will be shown to be the most rational thing possible. How do you justify, on the basis of reason and empricism, that the world will probably stay the same? How do you show that, while it may not be certain, it's a pretty safe bet?

Well the thing is I don't derive our idea and belief from intuition (at least not all of them as you're proposing). In case you haven't realised science produces some of the most counter-productive ideas.
Secondly, it seems to be lost to you that you should proportion your belief to the available evidence, hence when when evidence is lacking the rational thing to do is to proportion the belief to the evidence.


LJoll wrote:
So far off the mark.  I'm not assuming that induction is false, I'm just asking how we can know that it is true.

Here's the thing.... we've no reason at all to assume induction doesn't work. So the burden of proof is on YOU to demonstrate why we should doubt induction. We know induction works, and we've no reason to hold this will change so the most parsimonious position to take it to hold that it will remain the same. We know induction is a "pretty safe bet" given the fact is has always worked combined the fact we've no reason to assume it will not work. Doubting it for the sake of doubting it is nothing more than pseudoscepticism, pseudophilosophy.

"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring" -- Carl Sagan


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Archeopteryx

Archeopteryx wrote:
BobSpence1 wrote:
Archeopteryx wrote:

 

It stands to reason that some things must be true, even if we don't know what those truths are. The "probably false until shown to be true" approach seems more like a recipe for ignorance than its contendor.

 

Or am I missing the mark?

I see the fundamental problem here that there are literally infinitely many things which may be true, so that is actually a recipe for a total intellectual log-jam.

It seems to a better use of our reasoning to assume (non-trivial) propositions to be false until some positive evidence suggests they make have something going for them - not necessarily 'true' either, that is not relevant, just not impossible, and having some minimal support.

This does not stop us speculating or hypothesising about possibilities, so it doesn't lead to ignorance. It is the mistake of the Theists to jump from a speculation that is particularly appealing to an assumption of its truth, without worrying about looking for evidence, or considering all the alternatives.

When approaching a bridge, scepticism would not point automatically to an assumption that it was not safe, only to a specific claim that it was 'perfectly safe' when there were other grounds to be suspicious, like the age and/or apparent state of disrepair. Skepticism would be just as appropriate about an assertion that a perfectly sound-looking bridge was on the brink of collapse.

 

Oh, I see what I may have said wrong here. In the quotation you've cited, I've said that "false until shown true" is a path to ignorance, and yet, at the same time, I would say to a Christian, "I don't believe in your God because there is no reason to believe in your God."

So taking my quote as it stands, I would be calling myself ignorant. True.

 

I don't think there is disagreement, I think I've just worded my post in a troublesome way that I no longer like. I've tried to put all claims up against the same rule, but what I'm essentially saying is this: reason (induction included) is a human faculty. It exists to assist humans in making decisions. Whether or not the human using induction comes to a decision that is true or false, if he is using induction well, then he is being rational. The truth of his conclusion has little to do with it.

As you've pointed out in your response, the theist tends to cherry pick the evidence he uses to inductively skip to his desired conclusion. But if he was to use induction responsibly, testing the conclusion against all offered evidence and being honest with himself, he would probably find that he is more agnostic about the question than he realizes.

The bridge is a bad example, I admit, in comparison to the question of a god's existence because the bridge spiel is all about secondary qualities and can be completely arbitrary (dangerous for a 300 pound man, but safe for an 80 pound child).

Take away all my prattling and blabbing and bad analogies, and what I'm saying is simply that if a person is being rational, it doesn't matter if his accepted conclusion is actually true, it only matters how he came to that conclusion and how he persists (or not, when appropriate) in holding to that conclusion.

It doesn't matter if the claim "the sun will rise tomorrow" is actually true. It only matters why a person would hold to that conclusion. If they came to that conclusion by making good and responsible use of evidence and if they allow for the possibility that they might someday be proven wrong, then they are rational. If they came to that conclusion irresponsibly (well, he told me that it will rise tomorrow, and he seemed like a smart guy) and don't allow for the possibility that they might be proven wrong, then they are being irrational.

If you were a doctor, it's not about whether the patient lives or dies, it's about how you conducted your practice, regardless.

If you were a judge or jury, it's (unfortunately) not about whether the accused is innocent or guilty, it's about how you go about making the decision.

Being rational is not necessarily the same thing as being right. So even though induction can be wrong, and definitely is sometimes, the conclusions made by induction can still be considered rational, even when they are wrong.

Okay, hopefully I've got the kinks out.

Still problems?

 

Not really - expressed like that, I think that is pretty much how I see it.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
LJoll wrote:

LJoll wrote:
BobSpence1 wrote:

And of course LJoll went way off the deep end if claiming that there is 'no empirical evidence supporting the value of induction'.

How about Exhibit 1: the current state of Science and Technology....

What about it? When I see current technology I do not see a universal, unchanging set of physical laws that will remain the same for all time. I see shapes and colours and movement. Can you explain how they are equivalent.

The changing nature of Science and Technology, which is both historically and currently, a continual growth in the breadth and depth of our ability to explain and predict reality, is precisely the point.

That process is founded on inductive reasoning. So unless you deny that Science has allowed us to improve our ability to cure diseases, and do more things we would like to do than before, in what sense is that not empirical evidence for the 'value of induction'?

Your failure to see 'a universal, unchanging set of physical laws that will remain the same for all time' is not relevant to above statement - it is a separate, mainly philosophical, point. There may or may not be such an ultimate set of laws. Allwe need is to establish and refine a system which reflects, or is analogous to, major aspects of that ultimate set, to allow a coherent and useful system of theories which themselves reflect the nature of reality adquately for our purposes.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Textom
Textom's picture
Posts: 551
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
*catches up*  Okay, I

*catches up*

 Okay, I think I'm seeing enough common ground here that I can feel resolved on this issue overall.

My only parting shot is that I want to go on record with the opinion that imprecise language, when it can be avoided, should be.  Anything that increases the possibility of error is worth putting in a little extra effort over.  It's one of the fundamental principles of rhetoric dating back to classical times that even the appearance of deliberate deception is not worth the loss of credibility that results if it's discovered.

"After Jesus was born, the Old Testament basically became a way for Bible publishers to keep their word count up." -Stephen Colbert


kmisho
kmisho's picture
Posts: 298
Joined: 2006-08-18
User is offlineOffline
LJoll wrote: BobSpence1

LJoll wrote:
BobSpence1 wrote:

And of course LJoll went way off the deep end if claiming that there is 'no empirical evidence supporting the value of induction'.

How about Exhibit 1: the current state of Science and Technology....

 What about it? When I see current technology I do not see a universal, unchanging set of physical laws that will remain the same for all time. I see shapes and colours and movement. Can you explain how they are equivalent.

You are confusing functional with eternal.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
LJoll wrote: BobSpence1

LJoll wrote:
BobSpence1 wrote:

And of course LJoll went way off the deep end if claiming that there is 'no empirical evidence supporting the value of induction'.

How about Exhibit 1: the current state of Science and Technology....

What about it? When I see current technology I do not see a universal, unchanging set of physical laws that will remain the same for all time. I see shapes and colours and movement. Can you explain how they are equivalent.

Thinking about your response again, it is actually very strange. Basically non-sequiters, and disturbing implications about your mental state.

You 'look' at the current state of a system of  accumulated observational data,  current theories linking that data into a structured description of how those data are linked, and techniques and technology based on those theories and data, and you describe what you perceive 'shapes, color and movement'? WTF?

So if you think about, say, the Theory of Gravitation, and your description of the experience is in terms of some psychedelic vision?

You have some new variation on Synaesthesia,  where words are experienced as colors?

How is your response even a remotely meaningful comment on a set of ideas and information?

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
Ok, I just want to add some

Ok, I just want to add some stuff, as I recently had a discussion on IRC that pretty closely resembles what went on in this thread. I haven't read enough philosophy, so I sort of violated the rule not to engage in subjects where one is ignorant. Turns out, it didn't go that badly. (Conversation edited for space, clarity, humor and names are changed to protect the guilty).

 

IRC wrote:
[23:05] <internet_theist> I'm majoring in philosophy

[23:05] <internet_theist> so I know what i'm talking about

[23:05] <internet_theist> an empiricist REJECTS the idea of an external world

[23:06] <internet_theist> empiricism leads to skepticism like David Hume

[23:07] <internet_theist> do you agree with him?

[23:07] <internet_theist> the problem of induction

[23:08] <internet_theist> the future is like the past

[23:08] <KSMB> don't know the specifics of that propblem, so I can't discuss it

[23:08] <internet_theist> so I'm in better position than you

[23:09] <internet_theist> Hume basically destroyed scientific reasoning

[23:09] <KSMB> "better"

[23:10] <internet_theist> we don't have a rational basis for saying that the future will behave like the past

[23:10] <internet_theist> cause and effect is a fiction

[23:10] <KSMB> yes, scientific reasoning is clearly not up to par with theistic "reasoning"

 

Yes, you know the type. The philosophically inclined christian theist. Same mistakes, but much better at verbose vomit and high levels of rationalizing ability. If he payed attention in class (and if I knew at the time), Hume himself solved this "problem". I don't claim to know the future with absolute certainty (which I pointed out repeatedly), I just recognize that induction appears to work in the real world. I can't prove a priori that the future will behave like the past. But that doesn't mean I can't say anything about the world, since I recognize the concept of probabilities.

 

IRC wrote:

 [23:19] <internet_theist> there's a difference between formulating a law

 [23:20] <internet_theist> and a law REGULATING nature

[23:20] <internet_theist> I'm more concerned with the latter

[23:21] <internet_theist> it's not possible to justify the latter with experience

[23:21] <KSMB> how does any of this justify your belief in a cosmic jewish zombie, who is his own father?

[23:22] <internet_theist> laws only exist in a theistic worldview

[23:22] <internet_theist> it allows absolutes

[23:22] <KSMB> nonsense

[23:22] <internet_theist> empiricism does NOT

[23:23] <KSMB> feel free to make more baseless assertions

[23:23] <internet_theist> why should I adopt empiricism

[23:23] <internet_theist> ?

[23:24] <internet_theist> that seems to be your foundational assumption

[23:24] <internet_theist> it's an insufficient theory of knowledge to me

[23:25] <KSMB> I don't care what you adopt

[23:25] <internet_theist> and empiricism is self-refuting

[23:25] <KSMB> what I wanna know is how you justify your belief in the cosmic zombie

[23:25] <internet_theist> empirically test empiricism

[23:25] <internet_theist> sure

[23:25] <internet_theist> without God we can't prove anything

[23:25] <KSMB> hahahahhahahhaha

[23:25] <internet_theist> no God no laws

[23:25] <KSMB> rofl

[23:25] <internet_theist> no laws no rationality

[23:26] <KSMB> no tooth fairy no laws

[23:26] <internet_theist> all you get is postmodernism

[23:26] <KSMB> projection

[23:26] <internet_theist> you can't compare the tooth fairy with God

[23:26] <KSMB> yes I can

[23:26] <KSMB> they're equally silly

 

At this point, I'm getting quite frustrated with the nonsense. I don't even know if what he appears to be assuming about empiricism is true. The "empiricism is self-refuting", I just stared at that one with a glazed look.

 

IRC wrote:

[00:21] <internet_theist> which starting point makes knowledge possible

[00:22] <KSMB> that there is a real world?

[00:22] <internet_theist> between athesim and christianity

[00:23] <internet_theist> if the world is "real" then it's absolute

[00:23] <internet_theist> how does atheism allow for absolutes?

[00:23] <internet_theist> pragmatism doesn't

[00:23] <internet_theist> in pragmatism

[00:23] <internet_theist> truth changes

[00:24] <internet_theist> it's not absolute

[00:25] <KSMB> yeah

[00:25] <KSMB> atheism isn't a wordlview in itself, it's the rejection of theism

[00:25] <internet_theist> if there are no absolutes science is impossible

[00:26] <internet_theist> call it what you will

[00:26] <KSMB> you make so many naked assertsions

[00:26] <KSMB> I should almost save them, make a collage

[00:26] <internet_theist> I don't think you even know what you're talking about

 

[00:34] <internet_theist> we all have our presuppositions

[00:34] <KSMB> yeah

[00:35] <internet_theist> like empiricism

[00:35] <internet_theist> that's a presupposition

[00:35] <internet_theist> you don't test that in a lab

[00:35] <KSMB> how do you test your god?

[00:35] <internet_theist> no scientific experiment is going to say that empiricism is true

[00:36] <KSMB> so how do you test your god?

[00:36] <internet_theist> well that question implies that you must subject God to another standard

[00:37] <internet_theist> you want to test everything right

[00:37] <internet_theist> ?

[00:37] <internet_theist> absolutely EVERYTHING

[00:37] <internet_theist> right?

[00:37] <KSMB> as far as I can

[00:38] <internet_theist> when are you going to stop?

[00:38] <internet_theist> do it to no end?

[00:38] <KSMB> your answer implies that you assert your god, then place it outside of any concievable test

[00:38] <internet_theist> that just leads to skepticism to the extreme

[00:39] <KSMB> you should be skeptical

[00:39] <internet_theist> because I assume that God IS THE STANDARD

[00:39] <internet_theist> the final authority

[00:39] <KSMB> I assume that HGdhsafjkndsjb is THE STANDARD

[00:39] <KSMB> I can make stuff up too

[00:39] <internet_theist> and YOU assume that empiricism is the final standard

[00:40] <KSMB> unlike god, empirical tests give knowledge about the world

[00:40] <internet_theist> then test empiricism

[00:40] <KSMB> it's pragmatism, it works

[00:40] <internet_theist> test pragmatism

[00:40] <KSMB> it works

[00:40] <internet_theist> circular reasoning

 

Besides his constant whining about absolutes, here's where I'm not so sure about my own reasoning. My ultimate motivation for holding to empiricism/rationalism is that it works and gives me actual knowledge about the real world. I call this "pragmatism". Which would make it a label, not a method for gaining knowledge. "test pragmatism" would then make no sense. I guess I'm wondering where the error lies in my or his thinking. On the surface, it can seem circular, I admit. Any ideas or comments? This one has been bothering me a little.

 

At least I got the last word Smiling

 

IRC wrote:

[00:51] <KSMB> have fun defining your cosmic jewish zombie into existence


kmisho
kmisho's picture
Posts: 298
Joined: 2006-08-18
User is offlineOffline
LJoll wrote:You don't

LJoll wrote:
You don't understand. How can you even justify a probability for the Sun rising tomorrow? You cannot. I am not arguing that the logical process of induction leaves slight doubt, therefore we have to completely ignore it. I am arguing that induction is completely logiclly unfounded, so you have no excuse to pretend your knowledge is ultimately rational.

Then who are you talking to?


kmisho
kmisho's picture
Posts: 298
Joined: 2006-08-18
User is offlineOffline
KSMB wrote: Besides his

KSMB wrote:

 

Besides his constant whining about absolutes, here's where I'm not so sure about my own reasoning. My ultimate motivation for holding to empiricism/rationalism is that it works and gives me actual knowledge about the real world. I call this "pragmatism". Which would make it a label, not a method for gaining knowledge. "test pragmatism" would then make no sense. I guess I'm wondering where the error lies in my or his thinking. On the surface, it can seem circular, I admit. Any ideas or comments? This one has been bothering me a little.

He didn't seem to understand that his claim that god is foundational is also circular, which is what he accuses you of betraying. "He commits the crime he imputes."

Pragmatism is antifoundationalist. The objection that your pragmatism lacks a foundation is not an objection but merely an acknowledgment of what you already know (or at least suspect, since you are a pragmatist).