Originally posted by Jin-roh
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Philosophy 201 Guidelines
Cogito ergo sum
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Forum Rules: Here
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Existential comics punches scientism in the face, writes articulate blog post why.
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Starlight View PostI don't participate in such debates. I don't really think falsification is a criteria science uses much, so it wouldn't be a go-to reason for me as to why Creation Science wasn't a science.
Testing other possible explanations seems worthwhile, and improves the quality of the research by ruling in or out other competing explanations. I wouldn't call it falsification.
Popper's own example -Einstein's declaration that if stars did not appear to move when the moon passed between them, then gravity does not bend light- doesn't seem that fundamentally different than accounting for other factors. ("Did the time of day, not the internet, influence people's confidence? Let's do another test at 9:00am on a Saturday....")
To do something, you don't first need a philosophical definition of what you are doing, you just do it. If I try stuff to see what works, there's not a lot of deep philosophy going on - it's the equivalent of a baby who gives everything in the world around him a poke and puts it in his mouth to see what happens.
... then rocks fall to the earth because that is their nature, as it is the nature of fire to move upwards, and all reality is fundamentally water.
If a philosopher wants to come along after the fact and get all theoretical about why I'm doing it, and define it as different from what other people are doing, that is fine, but philosophers delude themselves as to their own importance if they believe that doing their philosophical theorizing was necessary for the scientist do research in the first place.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jin-roh View PostThis (from the second link) is probably one of the most lucid things I've read in a long time. Thank you for posting.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jin-roh View PostIt appears Mr Ruse doesn't think too highly of Dawkins either
As Ruse says in Why God Is a Moral Issue:
And in "Fighting the Fundamentalists: Chamberlain or Churchill?" he has written about his disagreements with Richard Dawkins and other militant atheists
And from an article aptly entitled "Why Richard Dawkins' humanists remind me of a religion":
In the article he explains his support for evolution and opposition to creationism but notes that because he is not like Dawkins, who sees science and religion at war, those in the latter's camp loathe him. P.Z. Myers refers to him as "a clueless gobshite." As Ruse notes, "because I will not bow down in praise of Dawkins and company, because I laugh at their pretentions and positions, I am anathema maranatha."
And this second article he concludes his piece with
Last edited by rogue06; 06-26-2017, 11:14 PM.
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
-
Originally posted by Adrift View PostHe is. He's a big Dawkins fanboy.
The word "science" in those circles is like "biblical" in Christian fundamentalism. It seems like it might refer to something, though it's not too long before you figure out it means "Us right. No ask questions. Others evil. Not like us" in their rather insular vernacular.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jin-roh View PostI'll take that as "yes, I would give that up."
If it walks like duck, quacks like a duck...
Popper's own example -Einstein's declaration that if stars did not appear to move when the moon passed between them, then gravity does not bend light- doesn't seem that fundamentally different than accounting for other factors. ("Did the time of day, not the internet, influence people's confidence? Let's do another test at 9:00am on a Saturday....")
I think we can both agree that science is a bit more complicated than that. If that's all science is, and ever was...
... then rocks fall to the earth because that is their nature, as it is the nature of fire to move upwards, and all reality is fundamentally water.
I don't know, it really sounds like you're doing exactly what the comic criticizes there:
Occam's Razor were conclusions of philosophy long before they were part of the necessary intellectual process of 'science'.
Humans tend to use a lot of heuristics in their thinking, and naturally don't construct models that are any more complicated than they need to be to explain the data because (a) we have evolved to love using heuristics where we can (b) making an extra-complex model would take gratuitous and unnecessary effort and people are lazy, and (c) the gratuitously complex parts of the model would be subject to arbitrary parameterization which in turn would be less useful because it gives the model less predictive power, and if the model can't predict anything then it's not much use in either telling us anything about the world or suggesting what type of experiment we might want to try next, and scientists tend to dislike wasting their time and funding on things that strike them as useless.
So while it is true that various versions of Occam's razor are used quite frequently in practice by scientists, I think scientists would still behave exactly the same and use the same methods they do if Occam had never existed. Their work is not dependent on any ground-work laid by philosophers in the past.
Besides, even if you won't acknowledge it as such, attempting to falsify one's own conclusions does seem to lead to stronger conclusions.
I also noticed that you seem to frame this debate as 'science v philosophy' thing"I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
"[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein
Comment
-
Originally posted by Starlight View PostI think that is a scientifically valid question to ask and a scientifically valid test to perform. You can't rule it out from your philosophical armchair. But what would happen is simply that you wouldn't be able to convince many people that was a likely theory and so wouldn't get funding for it.
Also, it's also kind of weird for you talk about the hypothetical of funding, when this study on the internet and people's perception of their own knowledge, was already done. (Yale University, 2015 irrc)
I disagree that Occam's Razor is part of "the necessary intellectual process" of 'science'.
Humans tend to use a lot of heuristics in their thinking, and naturally don't construct models that are any more complicated than they need to be to explain the data because (a) we have evolved to love using heuristics where we can (b) making an extra-complex model would take gratuitous and unnecessary effort and people are lazy, and (c) the gratuitously complex parts of the model would be subject to arbitrary parameterization which in turn would be less useful because it gives the model less predictive power, and if the model can't predict anything then it's not much use in either telling us anything about the world or suggesting what type of experiment we might want to try next, and scientists tend to dislike wasting their time and funding on things that strike them as useless.
So while it is true that various versions of Occam's razor are used quite frequently in practice by scientists, I think scientists would still behave exactly the same and use the same methods they do if Occam had never existed. Their work is not dependent on any ground-work laid by philosophers in the past.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
|
173 responses
643 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
06-07-2024, 07:30 AM
|
Comment