|
On August 03 2014 00:49 Prog wrote:If you can actually and convincingly show that there cannot be a thing like "value as such", or "knowledge as such" you probably get a position at an ivy league university. It is a highly debated topic with regard to moral realism, objective aesthetical value, knowledge contextualism/relativism/invariantism, etc. Take the philpapers survey for example: 39% believe there are platonic abstract objects 41% believe there are objective aesthetic values 31% believe in knowledge invariantism 56% accept or tend to moral realism ... Also a standard problem for "The only way you know anything is in terms of something else" is qualia. If you are in pain, you know that you are in pain. There is nothing more needed than being in pain, to know that you experience pain. Pain is not understood in terms of something else. There are workarounds for this (functionalism could be used to do that, for example), but I did not came across one that I found convincing.
You do only do know pain in terms of other things! You sense pain in your arm and say "my arm hurts." You only know that as distinct from "my arm doesn't hurt", because sometimes it hurts and other times it doesn't.
Do you mean that you can't put pain in words, into a string of symbols and characters, is that the concept of qualia? Well in that case, I can't put the color red in words, I can't put it into terms in that respect, but that doesn't certainly mean that I don't know what red is or that there is some absolute "red" out there, "as such", somewhere without any creature to sense it. In fact, I know red as distinct from green and blue and all the other colors! It's that one! Not this other one!
The word "qualia" itself means "what kind", and so the very term itself implies the very distinction and classification that is central to the topic at hand! It's this kind, not that kind! That is contrast, with each side put into terms of the other side. I know that this is a red apple because that is a green apple, and they look quite different. I know that this rock is hard because my dog is soft, and they look quite different. I know this is wine because that is vinegar, and they taste quite different. Light is only light in relation to the darkness under that desk over there, or whatever other darkness!
In fact, without eyes there wouldn't be any light, or indeed any darkness. It's exactly that age old question, "If a tree falls in a forest, and no one is around to hear it, does it makes a sound?" Well, certainly pressure waves, which we call sound waves, ripple out from the place and travel through the air, but without ears there is no sound. Never was there ever the sensation of sound, or just sound, all by itself without a creature to hear it (or, put another way, to distinguish it from silence). And there isn't any sensation of silence all by itself either, or just silence, without a creature to distinguish it from sound because there must be ears for there to be silence.
Sound and light themselves are waves, they are "on-offs", "crest-waves", "up-downs", or whatever you want to call it. The very vibration, with one side in terms of the other side exactly like Booleans or binary in computer science, creates in the nervous system a sensation of this as distinct from that, as red as distinct from blue or whatever.
Most people feel a constant effect of air pressure squeezing down on them their whole lives, having never gone up to a high mountain or into some other low pressure environment, and so they never know what the other sensation is until they feel it. Once they have felt it, they know it as distinct from that other feeling with the heavy air weighing down on me. The same is true of the kinesthetic sense, your sense of balance and weight, you know the feeling of accelerating (down from gravity or forward from running or forward from a car or whatever) as distinct from the feeling of not accelerating, each one in terms of its opposite.
Until the other sensation is felt, it's impossible to know it's really there. Take for example a fish that spends its entire life underwater it doesn't know what it's like to be in air, or in water, until it is fished out onto a boat. Then it can distinguish between the two sides in terms of one another. Or examine the case of a man born deaf who, upon being assigned a hearing aid, hears sound for the first time. He doesn't know silence or sound, but once he has heard sound, he knows that silence is that other sensation; he knows them in terms of one another.
|
On August 02 2014 18:47 2Pacalypse- wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2014 08:48 zulu_nation8 wrote:On August 02 2014 05:41 2Pacalypse- wrote:
Didn't you learn in your first lesson in high school physics class that "theories can never be proven"? How would you go about proving the fact then and why do you think the same rule doesn't apply to them? the statement "theories can never be proven" is not a theory but a logical necessity, if a theory is not falsifiable then it's not a scientific theory because you can't empirically test it and hence has no place in science. I think that statement has more to do with probabilities and less with logical necessities. But anyways, you didn't answer my question. Also, you've said that no respectable scientist would call a scientific theory a fact; I'd like to know why is that such a crime in everyday language that someone as esteemed as you would not respect someone's whole life work because of that.
It's the problem of induction, has nothing to do with probability. If you hypothesize all swans are white and find a million white swans to support the claim, you still will only need one black swan to disprove the theory. It's implicitly assuming a causal connection between future and past observations. What is your question? How do we prove the statement "theories can never be proven?" I just said it's not a theory but a deductive conclusion, made from the definition of theories, which is that they must be falsifiable.
It's not good to call theories facts because you see, science relies on concepts that aim to be accurate and operational. An evolutionary biologists calling evolution a fact is not a very scientific move, it rather seems dogmatic and sensationalist. More importantly, why did you make the claim in the first place? That scientific theories may as well be called facts in everyday language? Are you trying to say that society has such a high regard for scientific knowledge? If so, by bringing up a vague, anecdotal example? When you link me that wikipedia page, do you believe in it because that dude has a wikipedia page? Or did you examine the concepts of theory, fact, and evolution, before choosing to side with Goulding?
|
On August 03 2014 01:43 PoorPotato wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On August 03 2014 00:49 Prog wrote:If you can actually and convincingly show that there cannot be a thing like "value as such", or "knowledge as such" you probably get a position at an ivy league university. It is a highly debated topic with regard to moral realism, objective aesthetical value, knowledge contextualism/relativism/invariantism, etc. Take the philpapers survey for example: 39% believe there are platonic abstract objects 41% believe there are objective aesthetic values 31% believe in knowledge invariantism 56% accept or tend to moral realism ... Also a standard problem for "The only way you know anything is in terms of something else" is qualia. If you are in pain, you know that you are in pain. There is nothing more needed than being in pain, to know that you experience pain. Pain is not understood in terms of something else. There are workarounds for this (functionalism could be used to do that, for example), but I did not came across one that I found convincing. You do only do know pain in terms of other things! You sense pain in your arm and say "my arm hurts." You only know that as distinct from "my arm doesn't hurt", because sometimes it hurts and other times it doesn't. Do you mean that you can't put pain in words, into a string of symbols and characters, is that the concept of qualia? Well in that case, I can't put the color red in words, I can't put it into terms in that respect, but that doesn't certainly mean that I don't know what red is or that there is some absolute "red" out there, "as such", somewhere without any creature to sense it. In fact, I know red as distinct from green and blue and all the other colors! It's that one! Not this other one! The word "qualia" itself means "what kind", and so the very term itself implies the very distinction and classification that is central to the topic at hand! It's this kind, not that kind! That is contrast, with each side put into terms of the other side. I know that this is a red apple because that is a green apple, and they look quite different. I know that this rock is hard because my dog is soft, and they look quite different. I know this is wine because that is vinegar, and they taste quite different. Light is only light in relation to the darkness under that desk over there, or whatever other darkness! In fact, without eyes there wouldn't be any light, or indeed any darkness. It's exactly that age old question, "If a tree falls in a forest, and no one is around to hear it, does it makes a sound?" Well, certainly pressure waves, which we call sound waves, ripple out from the place and travel through the air, but without ears there is no sound. Never was there ever the sensation of sound, or just sound, all by itself without a creature to hear it (or, put another way, to distinguish it from silence). And there isn't any sensation of silence all by itself either, or just silence, without a creature to distinguish it from sound because there must be ears for there to be silence. Sound and light themselves are waves, they are "on-offs", "crest-waves", "up-downs", or whatever you want to call it. The very vibration, with one side in terms of the other side exactly like Booleans or binary in computer science, creates in the nervous system a sensation of this as distinct from that, as red as distinct from blue or whatever. Most people feel a constant effect of air pressure squeezing down on them their whole lives, having never gone up to a high mountain or into some other low pressure environment, and so they never know what the other sensation is until they feel it. Once they have felt it, they know it as distinct from that other feeling with the heavy air weighing down on me. The same is true of the kinesthetic sense, your sense of balance and weight, you know the feeling of accelerating (down from gravity or forward from running or forward from a car or whatever) as distinct from the feeling of not accelerating, each one in terms of its opposite. Until the other sensation is felt, it's impossible to know it's really there. Take for example a fish that spends its entire life underwater it doesn't know what it's like to be in air, or in water, until it is fished out onto a boat. Then it can distinguish between the two sides in terms of one another. Or examine the case of a man born deaf who, upon being assigned a hearing aid, hears sound for the first time. He doesn't know silence or sound, but once he has heard sound, he knows that silence is that other sensation; he knows them in terms of one another.
If we talk about philosophy, I think it is ok to use philosophical terminology. Qualia is philosophical terminology. For an introduction: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia/
The colour example with red being distinct from other colours is pretty much part of the idea of functionalism, which I cited as a possible answer that I deem unconvincing. There is also a little part considering functionalism and qualia in the stanford article.
On August 03 2014 01:39 bookwyrm wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2014 01:39 Prog wrote:On August 03 2014 01:31 bookwyrm wrote:On August 03 2014 00:49 Prog wrote:
If you can actually and convincingly show that there cannot be a thing like "value as such", or "knowledge as such" you probably get a position at an ivy league university no you wouldn't, we already had the 70s, saying those things is just a cliche It is not about saying this things, it is about actually and convincingly showing that they are true. The debate is still really big in academic philosophy currently. It's just that noone has a overwhelmingly convincing argument for either side. ah ok. I don't like academic philosophers I think they are pretty much useless. There's obviously no way to "prove" anything like that, if they are really engaged in that activity I think they are a waste of space.
My point was just to say: look, there is a huge debate about "value as such" and "value for x" so stating that there is only "value for x" like it would be a truism is a bit too bold. Be modest.
But my rhetoric might have made it less clear than I intended it to be.
|
have they made any progress on it since nicomachean ethics? 
It's dumb to think about proving or disproving axioms. What you do is postulate the axiom and see what results. You can't answer the question "is there Value As Such", you say "what are the consequences of assuming that there is, versus that there isn't, and which set of consequences do we prefer?" then you pick the axioms that have the consequences you want.
even if you show that adopting some axiom leads to a contradiction, that doesn't "disprove" it unless you have an additional axiom that your system shouldn't have any contradictions in it.
anyway I'm not trying to pick a fight with you I might have come in halfway through some other conversation and misunderstood 
|
I actually don't know. Ethics is not my field of interest. I guess they have elevated the discussion in terms of arguments and tools (logic is way more advanced now), and if you are ready to call that progress, then yes.
However, certainly noone found any proof, but that would probably be too high of a standard. And even though the majority of philosophers accept or tend to accept moral realism (according to the philpapers survey), I think it is not enough to call it a qualified majority. I'm not even sure if that gives us any reason to believe the moral realist arguments are stronger currently.
Overall I think you can answer a question "is there value as such". However, the answer is not achieved in a direct way and neither it is an answer that is certainly true, or proofed. I believe that inference to the best explanation is a tool that can be applied to it and a possible answer has then a status of being our best bet, considering the current evidence. And postulating axioms and checking the results can be part of infering to the best explanation. We cannot expect prooflike answers in philosophy. But I do think we can pick one answer out of all currently available ones and say "that seems to be the best one and therefore is the most likely true, compared to the others". If we do philosophy this way, then every single option we discard because it does not qualify as a good explanation is progress. Very very small, but still.
|
Croatia9455 Posts
On August 03 2014 01:31 bookwyrm wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2014 18:47 2Pacalypse- wrote:On August 02 2014 07:58 bookwyrm wrote:On August 02 2014 06:56 2Pacalypse- wrote:On August 02 2014 06:18 bookwyrm wrote:On August 02 2014 05:32 2Pacalypse- wrote:On August 02 2014 05:05 zulu_nation8 wrote:
but theories... are not facts, and no respectable scientist would think they are. Good thing we have our respectable TL poster to tell us what respectable scientists think. Here, just read this article and you can see there are different definitions for things like fact, theory, scientific fact, scientific theory etc. And this is exactly the semantics discussion that I did not want to get into. On August 02 2014 05:09 bookwyrm wrote:On August 02 2014 04:51 2Pacalypse- wrote:On August 02 2014 04:33 bookwyrm wrote:not examples. I'm looking for experimental design here. all you've done is profess faith that science will someday answer certain questions, what I want is a very specific example of how you might go about using the scientific method to investigate philosophical questions. I want you to be very specific, that's the point like, imagine you are writing a "materials and methods" section in a lab report On August 02 2014 04:28 2Pacalypse- wrote:
if you make some presumptions like "living is preferred to dying", "comfort is preferred to suffering" etc, science has a great deal to say. lol. "if you assume away the question, the question goes away." what if I disagree with your presumptions? that's the whole point. Like, it's more complicated than to say "comfort is better than suffering" for all sorts of obvious reasons. I might think that suffering is good because it builds character (i.e. I might be Seneca). I could think that comfort is meaningless without suffering. I could think that mankind deserves suffering because we have sinned against God. That's the whole question I'm trying to point out to you edit: also, I'm not "moving the goalposts.' I've been trying to get you to do the exact same thing for a few pages now, which you're avoiding. I've been quite consistent in what I'm asking for. Are you fucking serious? completely
I said it quite clearly: "I didn't say science can answer philosophical questions, just that it can ask them." Asking a question is very easy. I even gave you some examples of asking them.
so now you are a personification of Science? You just asked questions in English, not science. Show me how science can ask the questions. In order to do that, you have to give some sort of hint of what an experiment would look like (otherwise, it's not "science"). Experiments are how you ask questions in science. If you don't have an experiment, it's not "science asking questions" Fine, I guess I should've used "scientists" instead of "science". You win. I'm glad we got to the bottom of this. but you recognize that not all things that scientists do is science, right? like, when scientists take a shit, it's not science, it's pooping. when scientists do philosophy, that doesn't make it science. If you're going to agree about THIS, i'm not sure why you were arguing with me. Sure, I'll agree to that. But will you agree that some things that were considered philosophical issues in the past are now part of some branch of science and do you agree that will continue to happen in the future? sure, that's obvious. however in most cases I would argue that the philosophical question has merely been pushed back and not eliminated. or has changed forms in some way. or has imploded upon itself opening up several more philosophical questions in its wake. but there's no way you're going to be able to proceed from an existential claim to a universal claim of this type (i.e. to proceed from "there is an instance in which P problems have become S problems" to "all P problems will eventually become S problems") - it's at best undecidable (but actually quite obviously false). Aren't you just calling my original point obvious? If you agreed with my previous post then you agree that science has in the past asked (and answered!) some of the philosophical questions and it will continue asking some of the philosophical questions and potentially answering them. No, we don't agree. see the last ten pages. we can go back to the bit where I ask you for an example of an experiment and you spend five posts trying to avoid it, if you like you provided a list of philosophical questions yourself, none of which can be "asked" in a well formed manner by science. make an experiment that asks one of those questions, and I'll concede defeat. I thought I had you licked but you seem to have forgotten overnight that you lost.
I conceded that I should've used the word 'scientists' instead of 'science' because that's what I actually meant in my original statement. But then you basically agreed to my original statement, even though I didn't mean to say that at first. You said it's obvious that some issues that were part of the philosophy in the past are now part of the science. So the questions like "what is nature of water?" and "what is life?" that could be considered philosophical questions in the past are now answered by science.
But of course, you can continue saying that that is not science asking the philosophical questions, because the true philosophical question have just been pushed back deeper into the matter. And I can say I don't care what you say.
On August 03 2014 01:31 bookwyrm wrote:
you want to divide questions into a) scientific questions and b) silly questions. here's a question: Should I punch you in the face? It's not a particularly silly questions. Nor can you use science to answer it. You lose man, sorry.
I bet you felt alpha as fuck writing that.
On August 03 2014 01:43 zulu_nation8 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2014 18:47 2Pacalypse- wrote:On August 02 2014 08:48 zulu_nation8 wrote:On August 02 2014 05:41 2Pacalypse- wrote:
Didn't you learn in your first lesson in high school physics class that "theories can never be proven"? How would you go about proving the fact then and why do you think the same rule doesn't apply to them? the statement "theories can never be proven" is not a theory but a logical necessity, if a theory is not falsifiable then it's not a scientific theory because you can't empirically test it and hence has no place in science. I think that statement has more to do with probabilities and less with logical necessities. But anyways, you didn't answer my question. Also, you've said that no respectable scientist would call a scientific theory a fact; I'd like to know why is that such a crime in everyday language that someone as esteemed as you would not respect someone's whole life work because of that. It's the problem of induction, has nothing to do with probability. If you hypothesize all swans are white and find a million white swans to support the claim, you still will only need one black swan to disprove the theory. It's implicitly assuming a causal connection between future and past observations. What is your question? How do we prove the statement "theories can never be proven?" I just said it's not a theory but a deductive conclusion, made from the definition of theories, which is that they must be falsifiable. It's not good to call theories facts because you see, science relies on concepts that aim to be accurate and operational. An evolutionary biologists calling evolution a fact is not a very scientific move, it rather seems dogmatic and sensationalist. More importantly, why did you make the claim in the first place? That scientific theories may as well be called facts in everyday language? Are you trying to say that society has such a high regard for scientific knowledge? If so, by bringing up a vague, anecdotal example? When you link me that wikipedia page, do you believe in it because that dude has a wikipedia page? Or did you examine the concepts of theory, fact, and evolution, before choosing to side with Goulding?
My question was "How would you go about proving the fact then and why do you think the same rule doesn't apply to them?" after you said "oh ok i was not aware there is a definition of fact that says it could be false. Sounds like a useful distinction." (which I assumed was sarcastic reply; my bad if it wasn't). Not sure why you replied to bunch of stuff that I didn't even say.
I only linked you to that wikipedia page because you seemed to be unaware of different concepts between fact, theory, scientific fact, scientific theory (to be honest, I was too; that's precisely why I didn't want to get into this semantic discussion in the first place).
Also, good to know that an evolutionary biologist calling evolution a fact is not scientific (even though no one claimed it is). I'm sure no one in the field will consider him a respectable scientist because of that.
|
I still don't understand the question, "How would you go about proving the fact then and why do you think the same rule doesn't apply to them?" What facts are you talking about?
You claimed scientific theories are "facts" according to the definition of an evolutionary biologist, in an attempt to argue what? A fact in every scientific and philosophical field means a true statement, meaning there cannot be any doubt to its truth. The biologist would like to believe that because there is so much evidence supporting evolution, that it "may as well" be called a fact, which is a useless and unscientific distinction. More so, he's proclaiming an entire theory, which by definition cannot be absolutely certain, as fact, rather than defining observations, which are usually what scientific "facts" refer to.
Why did you bring up this evolution instead of something like, the earth is round? What do you think is closer to "fact"?
I don't know why you're still so defensive, I pointed out the reasons over and over why scientists should not refer to a theory such as evolution as "fact." Yet again, you ignore everything I type and instead respond sarcastically while appealing to authority.
|
On August 03 2014 02:39 2Pacalypse- wrote:
I only linked you to that wikipedia page because you seemed to be unaware of different concepts between fact, theory, scientific fact, scientific theory (to be honest, I was too; that's precisely why I didn't want to get into this semantic discussion in the first place).
No, I am aware, you don't seem to be, you still keep linking that biologist's "definition," which is not operational, as a "concept." It's not a scientific concept, it's a biased and dogmatic claim.
|
Croatia9455 Posts
On August 03 2014 02:56 zulu_nation8 wrote:
I still don't understand the question, "How would you go about proving the fact then and why do you think the same rule doesn't apply to them?" What facts are you talking about?
You claimed scientific theories are "facts" according to the definition of an evolutionary biologist, in an attempt to argue what? A fact in every scientific and philosophical field means a true statement, meaning there cannot be any doubt to its truth. The biologist would like to believe that because there is so much evidence supporting evolution, that it "may as well" be called a fact, which is a useless and unscientific distinction. More so, he's proclaiming an entire theory, which by definition cannot be absolutely certain, as fact, rather than defining observations, which are usually what scientific "facts" refer to.
Why did you bring up this evolution instead of something like, the earth is round? What do you think is closer to "fact"?
I don't know why you're still so defensive, I pointed out the reasons over and over why scientists should not refer to a theory such as evolution as "fact." Yet again, you ignore everything I type and instead respond sarcastically while appealing to authority.
How is the question hard to understand. You said (probably sarcastically) that you were not aware that a fact could be false. I asked how would you go about proving that fact is true then and how is that different from "proving" a scientific theory.
And lol, you ask me why I'm so defensive after you decided to chip in into the discussion with your patronizing attitude and then continued to make sweeping statements that are only based on your dislike of a particular person I cited.
It's ironic that you accuse me of ignoring everything you read, because no, I did not claim what a definition of fact is, certainly not by appealing to a 1 minute long video of an authority. All I tried to say (before you decided to chip in), is that it's ok to use word fact for scientific theory in everyday language and no one would call you up on it. They certainly wouldn't claim that scientist shouldn't be respected if he does it.
On August 03 2014 03:01 zulu_nation8 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2014 02:39 2Pacalypse- wrote:
I only linked you to that wikipedia page because you seemed to be unaware of different concepts between fact, theory, scientific fact, scientific theory (to be honest, I was too; that's precisely why I didn't want to get into this semantic discussion in the first place). No, I am aware, you don't seem to be, you still keep linking that biologist's "definition," which is not operational, as a "concept." It's not a scientific concept, it's a biased and dogmatic claim.
Did we watch a separate video? Did you see anywhere in that video Richard Dawkins defining what a fact is? All I've seen is him using it as you would use it in an everyday language and the cameraman did *not* stop the shooting and called him out on what he meant by that, nor was he ostracized in scientific community for it. Shocker, I know.
|
Usually mathematical facts are true "a priori" meaning before experience, for example you don't need to actually find triangular objects to "prove" the fact that a triangle has three sides. It stands as fact without any reference to the outside world. Similarly a physical "fact" is something like the sun rises from the east, it's a fact by induction, meaning that just because no one has ever seen the sun rise from the west, does not mean it cannot, but because there is such a strong link between the object and its phenomenon that for all practical purposes, physicists will refer to it as fact, which are not as strong as mathematical facts because they are determined "a posterori" or after experience.
In either case there is no proof needed, and no proof possible because they are true by default, hence why they are called facts. Theorems and postulates need and can be proved. If something needs to be proven then by definition it cannot be fact, because it is not obviously true.
The argument for evolution as "fact," from the wiki page, says that the abundant evidence supporting evolution is strong enough for the theory to be claimed as fact, and I'm assuming bringing it into the same class of other scientific theories such as that the earth rotates around the sun, or F = MA. Again, this is a ridiculous claim. By your own experience and knowledge, do you believe that any biological theory, let alone evolution, can claim as much certainty as a Newtonion law? I do not, and I can't fathom how anyone can unless they are fanatics.
I did not watch the Dawkins video, please link it again. I was talking about the wiki page you linked, not the video.
Let me draw up you argument.
You claimed: scientific theories may as well be called facts in everyday language. Which theories? How? What is "everyday language?" Why should it matter when we are talking about technical knowledge? You never answer, I doubt the Dawkins video will explain, but I will watch it. You are once again, appealing to authority, "just because Dawkins said, it becomes a valid claim." I gave actual reasons for why it's a bad claim. All you have done so far is point to biologists who claim the same thing, as if that makes your argument valid. Please make actual points instead of appealing to others.
|
There's a Dawkiin quote in the article. It basically says "people are stupid, so instead of explaining them properly, we should tell them something simple And justify it on the base of our authority." I am unimpressed by that attitude.
|
Guys 2pacalypse is just a rolled up hedgehog in defensive position. He's unable to honestly read and comprehend anything that threatens his ego. He still doesn't seem to understand the very basic questions he's been asked repeatedly. No point.
|
Yeah a bit back seat moderation, but how about not being total douchebags. Looking at you IgnE and Zulu. There's some interesting reading in here, I hate having you read you guys shit it up with condesending comments that literally serve no purpose beyond showing you are cunts.
|
Croatia9455 Posts
On August 03 2014 03:37 zulu_nation8 wrote:
Usually mathematical facts are true "a priori" meaning before experience, for example you don't need to actually find triangular objects to "prove" the fact that a triangle has three sides. It stands as fact without any reference to the outside world. Similarly a physical "fact" is something like the sun rises from the east, it's a fact by induction, meaning that just because no one has ever seen the sun rise from the west, does not mean it cannot, but because there is such a strong link between the object and its phenomenon that for all practical purposes, physicists will refer to it as fact, which are not as strong as mathematical facts because they are determined "a posterori" or after experience.
In either case there is no proof needed, and no proof possible because they are true by default, hence why they are called facts. Theorems and postulates need and can be proved. If something needs to be proven then by definition it cannot be fact, because it is not obvious that there is no doubt it can be true.
The argument for evolution as "fact," from the wiki page, says that the abundant evidence supporting evolution is strong enough for the theory to be claimed as fact, and I'm assuming bringing it into the same class of other scientific theories such as that the earth rotates around the sun, or F = MA. Again, this is a ridiculous claim. By your own experience and knowledge, do you believe that any biological theory, let alone evolution, can claim as much certainty as a Newtonion law? I do not, and I can't fathom how anyone does unless they are fanatics.
I did not watch the Dawkins video, please link it again. I was talking about the wiki page you linked, not the video.
Let me draw up you argument.
You claimed: scientific theories may as well be called facts in everyday language. Which theories? How? What is "everyday language?" Why should it matter when we are talking about technical knowledge? You never answer, I doubt the Dawkins video will explain, but I will watch it. You are once again, appealing to authority, "just because Dawkins said, it becomes a valid claim." I gave actual reasons for why it's a bad claim. All you have done so far is point to biologists who claim the same thing, as if that makes your argument valid. Please make actual points instead of appealing to others.
No, let's go back to what I originally said and what started all this:
On August 02 2014 01:47 2Pacalypse- wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2014 00:37 Prog wrote:
PS: I always thought the difference of theory and hypothesis in physics were based on whether there is a mathematical framework that has not been falsified. I think there are (at least partially) mathematical frameworks for string theory, so I called it theory. If you can show me (with sources) why that is false, please do so. [I edited this last part sligthly] There's no really a rigid definition of the word "theory" nor is it used consistently, because each field tends to treat it differently. However, the most useful way of thinking about scientific theory in its truest sense would be to use the word "fact" in ordinary language. Here's a good discussion on string theory specifically: http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/10rir2/is_string_theory_an_actual_scientific_theory/
I stand by it. I meant it in the most innocent way possible. I definitely didn't mean to start a philosophical discussion about it, but alas, I should've known better by posting in this thread. I got jumped on it for some ridiculous reasons and then somewhere along the way you decided to stop by and chip in without even reading what I said originally. It's like you artificially try to make an argument out of something that was supposed to be obvious, just for the sake of arguing and so you could somehow "win" that argument and feel happy about yourself (hey, that sounds a lot like philosophy!).
The reason why I'm not giving actual answers or arguments, is because I find this discussion absurd at this point and in the end, this is a semantics issue (something that I stressed out at the fucking beginning). Your explanation of facts is well received. However, when you ask someone on the street what they think 'facts' are, I doubt they would gave you that same definition. So... when they tell you "oh, but gravity is just a theory"; then you tell them "but scientist use the word theory much more seriously than you; think of it like this, gravity is a fact". Would that be such a wrong thing to say in your everyday life to a person who doesn't know better? Or would you start lecturing everyone about differences between scientific theories and facts and a priori this a posterori that?
You can accuse me all you want of arguing from authority, but explain to me why when Dawkins called evolution a 'fact' in that video it was obvious to everyone what he meant by it? And when I do it, I get jumped on and dragged into the endless discussion about inductions and logical necessities...
Omg, I can't even believe I'm discussing this. It's like the ultimate mental masturbation.
On August 03 2014 03:41 corumjhaelen wrote:
There's a Dawkiin quote in the article. It basically says "people are stupid, so instead of explaining them properly, we should tell them something simple And justify it on the base of our authority." I am unimpressed by that attitude.
Can you provide source on that? I'm really interested in what was actually said.
On August 03 2014 05:13 IgnE wrote:
Guys 2pacalypse is just a rolled up hedgehog in defensive position. He's unable to honestly read and comprehend anything that threatens his ego. He still doesn't seem to understand the very basic questions he's been asked repeatedly. No point.
Thank you for that expert analysis on the situation. It's very useful.
|
which of my comments serve no purpose? All my accusations are grounded and I have not insulted anyone.
|
|
|
2Pacalypse please do not play the victim card. If by a "semantics" argument you mean this is an argument about the correct definition of concepts, then yes it is, and it's absolutely relevant for this discussion. You keep saying you are giving a layman's definition of theory, which I honestly don't know how to respond to. In this case the layman would be wrong, and that you are participating in this discussion assumes that you should have more than a layman's, or a scientifically uneducated understanding of the terms you are using. Gravity is both a natural phenomenon and a theory based on observation. It would be wrong in any argument to confuse the meaning of the terms you are using simply because you meant it in an innocent way.
What I am trying to highlight is that your confusing of the terms theory and fact indicates a deeper misunderstanding of scientific concepts that you should not simply write off.
Why does Dawkins call evolution a fact in the video? Because he is an evolution fanatic who has no regard for operational definition and the history of science. It may be obvious to YOU that evolution is a fact, but it is not obvious to me, and I am confident that it should NOT be obvious to anyone who respects science.
On August 03 2014 06:00 2Pacalypse- wrote:
Would that be such a wrong thing to say in your everyday life to a person who doesn't know better? Or would you start lecturing everyone about differences between scientific theories and facts and a priori this a posterori that?
Are you criticizing that I gave an in-depth answer to your question? The ordinary person who does not have that knowledge usually do not hold strong opinions on matters they know they have no knowledge of.
|
Croatia9455 Posts
What agenda?
Are you telling me there are not philosophically naive people out there? Hell, I am one of them as I obviously realized in this thread. In fact, I'm pretty sure majority of people don't know and don't care the differences between scientific theories and facts. So it seems perfectly reasonable when Dawkins (and others in that link, just so I'm not accused as some Dawkins worshipper) call evolution a fact so as not to confuse those people who don't know what scientists really mean by the word theory.
The example of evolution is the most prominent one because there's an active effort to distort it and create fake controversy around it. But the same thing could be said about any other well accepted scientific theory, eg. theory of heliocentricism.
Also as a side-note to your previous post where you interpret Dawkins' point as calling people stupid and not explaining them is very unjust, seeing as he spent half of his life as a science educator trying to explain evolution to people.
|
On August 03 2014 06:31 2Pacalypse- wrote:Also as a side-note to your previous post where you interpret Dawkins' point as calling people stupid and not explaining them is very unjust, seeing as he spent half of his life as a science educator trying to explain evolution to people.
precisely BECAUSE dawkins is a pop cultural figure with a proselytizing mission about "explaining" evolution to people who have somehow, mysteriously (on his view), not yet entered the 20th century, he has an interest in glossing over the finer points and making the whole thing seem like a more imposing edifice than it really is. He's not interested in asking difficult questions about the very thing which he is trying so hard to promote. Just as TV preachers are not interested in talking about theological problems or points of difficulty in the doctrines which they expound - they want to present them as seamless wholes. Dawkins DOES think people are stupid - he says it explicitly. Since his entire thesis is that there is no rational reason to believe anything other than what he thinks, and that the people to which his polemic is addressed are hapless fools trapped in some "pre-rational" ideology...
You're going to have to give up on your attachment to Dawkins as a credible figure. Let's agree to all go read the Selfish Gene and the Extended Phenotype and pretend like he died in a plane crash after that.
|
Not knowing the difference between theory and fact is being scientifically, not philosophically uneducated. I would think it would be much less confusing to teach what counts as theory and fact in science, rather than to make people believe evolution is fact. And I would think that calling evolution a fact is as misleading as whatever evidence evolution deniers bring up.
Evolution will never equal something like the theory of gravity in terms of certainty because biology relies on much more qualitative instead quantitative data compared to physics and chemistry.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
