Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

New Scientist on the yoga mat: We make everything real

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Image result for yoga mat public domain image From Philip Ball at New Scientist:

The idea that we create reality seems absurd. But an audacious new take on quantum theory suggests the fundamental laws of nature emerge from our own experiences

That woo-woo has been around forever, or at least since the last remnants of the Stone Age. It was one of the things people had to fight, to get science off the ground.

Now some are contemplating a mind-boggling alternative: that a coherent description of reality, with all its quantum quirks, can arise from nothing more than random subjective experiences. It looks like the “perspective of a madman”, says the author of this bold new theory, because it compels us to abandon any notion of fundamental physical laws. But if it stands up, it would not only resolve some deep puzzles about quantum mechanics, it would turn our deepest preconceptions about reality itself inside out. (paywall) More.

Many naturalists must be looking for that exit just now. After all, nature, as defined today, cannot be all there is. Science demonstrates that.

Quantum mechanics doesn’t tell us that we make everything real unless that is the only way we can see it.

So why does scientism always seem to end up in mysticism’s illegal booze can?

Note: We extend a sincere apology to the manufacturers of yoga mats, most of whose occupants have more sense than what we describe above.

See also: Biophysicist Kirk Durston: Canada’s governor general as a highly visible example of scientism

and

Post-modern science: The illusion of consciousness sees through itself

Comments
DS, that is getting into being a tangent off a tangent. I have given two links to more detailed apparent expert reports. In a sense, this is a sidetrack, the openly accessible info is to my mind far more troubling starting with the infamous chalkboard diagram. I also repeat, where are the speakeasies? KFkairosfocus
November 21, 2017
November
11
Nov
21
21
2017
02:22 PM
2
02
22
PM
PDT
PPS: Earlier report: https://web.archive.org/web/20120416233130/http://www.mcso.org/MultiMedia/PressRelease/MARAZEBESTREPORT.pdfkairosfocus
November 21, 2017
November
11
Nov
21
21
2017
02:11 PM
2
02
11
PM
PDT
KF,
As for Podesta and emails and certain shops in DC, that is way off topic
That's fine, but obviously we are not discussing PizzaGate in that case.daveS
November 21, 2017
November
11
Nov
21
21
2017
02:04 PM
2
02
04
PM
PDT
KF,
DS, I don’t need a source. Go download Libre Office and use the drawing package to open a valid copy of the cert as released. I did that years back shortly after its release and the layers were there. Any number of packages should be able to do that. A gif or jpg scan of a document should have one layer and should go to PDF as a one layer image; the document was multi-layer, 7 – 9 IIRC. I suspect there will be online discussions.
Did you read the National Review article I linked to? It says:
UPDATE: I’ve confirmed that scanning an image, converting it to a PDF, optimizing that PDF, and then opening it up in Illustrator, does in fact create layers similar to what is seen in the birth certificate PDF. You can try it yourself at home.
From an article posted on foxnews.com:
He said the layers cited by doubters are evidence of the use of common, off-the-shelf scanning software — not evidence of a forgery. “I have seen a lot of illustrator documents that come from photos and contain those kind of clippings—and it looks exactly like this,” he said. Tremblay explained that the scanner optical character recognition (OCR) software attempts to translate characters or words in a photograph into text. He said the layers cited by the doubters shows that software at work – and nothing more. “When you open it in Illustrator it looks like layers, but it doesn’t look like someone built it from scratch. If someone made a fake it wouldn’t look like this,” he said.“Some scanning software is trying to separate the background and the text and splitting element into layers and parts of layers.” Tremblay also said that during the scanning process, instances where the software was unable to separate text fully from background led to the creation of a separate layer within the document. This could be places where a signature runs over the line of background, or typed characters touch the internal border of the document. “I know that you can scan a document from a scanner most of the time it will appear as one piece, but that doesn’t mean that there’s no software that’s doing this kind of stuff,” he said, adding that it’s really quite common. “I’d be more afraid it’d be fake if it was one in piece. It would be harder to check if it’s a good one if it’s a fake,” Tremblay said.
Edit: Well, the American Thinker article does address the issue. I'll take a look later. Since we're exchanging links back and forth, here's a response to the American Thinker article.daveS
November 21, 2017
November
11
Nov
21
21
2017
01:55 PM
1
01
55
PM
PDT
DS, I don't need a source. Go download Libre Office and use the drawing package to open a valid copy of the cert as released. I did that years back shortly after its release and the layers were there. Any number of packages should be able to do that. A gif or jpg scan of a document should have one layer and should go to PDF as a one layer image; the document was multi-layer, 7 - 9 IIRC. I suspect there will be online discussions. As for Podesta and emails and certain shops in DC, that is way off topic, my concern is there HAVE to be speakeasies, and such always use codes to access the underground side. WHERE ARE THEY, WHY IS THERE NOT A DECADES LONG LIST OF BUSTS WITH BIG NAMES GAOLED AND MORE? My suspicion is at the rate things are going 1/2 of Congress, 1/4 of wider DC and 2/3 of Hollywood and NY may well be implicated before this thing burns out. Though, I am concerned that some innocents are going to be badly burned in the fires esp if a mob spirit rises up. I confess that the suicide of an MP in the UK is troubling. KF PS: did a DDGo -- I have walked away from Google, here is an AT article: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2012/07/new_obama_birth_certificate_forgery_proof_in_the_layers.html I looked up W/bk on the report: https://web.archive.org/web/20121021013123/http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/assets/Obama_LFBC_Report_MaraZebest_2012-07-04.pdfkairosfocus
November 21, 2017
November
11
Nov
21
21
2017
01:47 PM
1
01
47
PM
PDT
KF,
DS, I have no intent to go down rabbit-trails. A clean copy of a document that is presumably a print off from some government archive will not have IIRC 7 – 9 layers in it.
Would you mind explaining why, with a source for that?
The speakeasy issue is much worse, as to hide that sort of thing requires a lot of dirty power penetrating key institutions and with the ruthlessness to enforce omerta. Chilling. But it suggests some ugly but plausible explanations of a lot that is going on.
Do you believe the hacked emails implicate John Podesta as a child sex trafficker? I'm guessing from your responses so far that you are not convinced that this is true (which is consistent with my position---I don't know Podesta is innocent, but the PizzaGate "theory" is utterly unconvincing).daveS
November 21, 2017
November
11
Nov
21
21
2017
01:17 PM
1
01
17
PM
PDT
WJM, do keep us up to date. For Islamist terror, I suggest, look at the ME oil money. Why did the media cover over marxist agitator background? (NB: Just the pic at the chalkboard is telling.) The Pizza / hot dog symbolism is obvious and there are reports confirming its use as a speakeasy code. I used to think snuff movies were fantasy but a clear case has surfaced in the Philippines. I await the bursting of the dam, a lot will be swept away. KFkairosfocus
November 21, 2017
November
11
Nov
21
21
2017
01:17 PM
1
01
17
PM
PDT
@WJM
The birth certificate the White House provided was a blatant fake. Anyone with any graphic document program expertise could easily see it. Two separate forensic groups – international experts – verified it was a fake.
"blatantly fake" is not an argument. Having helped found a new-media design company in the late 90s, I have graphic document program "expertise", yet I'm unaware of anyway of "seeing" that it was fake. Furthermore, who are these "international experts" you failed to identity?critical rationalist
November 21, 2017
November
11
Nov
21
21
2017
01:06 PM
1
01
06
PM
PDT
DS, I have no intent to go down rabbit-trails. A clean copy of a document that is presumably a print off from some government archive will not have IIRC 7 - 9 layers in it. The speakeasy issue is much worse, as to hide that sort of thing requires a lot of dirty power penetrating key institutions and with the ruthlessness to enforce omerta. Chilling. But it suggests some ugly but plausible explanations of a lot that is going on. KFkairosfocus
November 21, 2017
November
11
Nov
21
21
2017
12:51 PM
12
12
51
PM
PDT
DS, I hear your concerns. I am pretty well satisfied that the 9/11 attacks were a high-water mark of islamist terrorism masterminded by a demolition expert.
Islamist terrorism only exists to the extent that cartels fund them and provide them with weaponry. As with any investigation, follow the money. There's a reason Trump visited Saudi Arabia first, shortly followed by the arrest of 11 princes and 300 government officials and businessmen over there. There's also a reason that the capacity for 9/11 families to sue Saudi Arabia was vetoed by Obama.
On “birtherism,” there are in fact a lot of unexplained issues and hidden things, but I suggest one question: did you ever look at the document layers in the released Birth certificate? I did, and it is troubling in a wider context.
The birth certificate the White House provided was a blatant fake. Anyone with any graphic document program expertise could easily see it. Two separate forensic groups - international experts - verified it was a fake. That doesn't prove he wasn't born in the USA, but it does raise serious questions.
Though, my concerns on that past US President centre more on his obvious training as a marxian agitator in the cultural marxist school, his deliberate destabilisation of marriage and family, law and civil society and more.
All of which was hidden and abetted by a complicit media and the establishment of both political parties.
As for Pizza gate, I have already pointed out that speakeasies MUST exist, where are they? Why are they by and large so invisible, especially given what is now coming out on suppression for decades. KF
What the term "Pizzagate" represents has already been historically verified and is in the process every day of being verified even further as to its worldwide scope and reach. Major pedo busts in several foreign countries (Belgium, Norway, etc.), a huge upsurge in pedo and trafficking ring busts in the USA (largely ignored by national mainstream media), facts we already know about Hastert, Epstein, Weiner, what Feldman and others are now trying to reveal. The Westminster child abuse coverup, at least two capitol hill cover-ups, the banned Discovery channel documentary, Franklin Credit Union, the documented deaths of those investigating these rings, etc. But, their time has arrived. Not soon - now. It's already happening. There are some things even the mainstream media cannot ignore - and with the white hats in charge of the NSA data, it's relatively easy to turn most. Thre have already been a few recent, questionable deaths of high-ranking individuals, including another close member of the Clinton inner circle down in Washington. They're turning on each other now :) Never thought I'd see the day.William J Murray
November 21, 2017
November
11
Nov
21
21
2017
10:23 AM
10
10
23
AM
PDT
KF,
I am pretty well satisfied that the 9/11 attacks were a high-water mark of islamist terrorism masterminded by a demolition expert.
Excellent. That's also my conclusion.
On “birtherism,” there are in fact a lot of unexplained issues and hidden things, but I suggest one question: did you ever look at the document layers in the released Birth certificate? I did, and it is troubling in a wider context.
I vaguely recall issues related to this. What specific details about these document layers do you think indicate the certificate was faked? Here's the National Review on this issue.
As for Pizza gate, I have already pointed out that speakeasies MUST exist, where are they? Why are they by and large so invisible, especially given what is now coming out on suppression for decades?
Who knows? My question is, do you believe that emails in John Podesta's account contain coded messages indicating, among other things, that Comet Ping Pong is actually one of these "speakeasies"? Certainly the simple fact that the "speakeasies" are unaccounted for is not evidence that John Podesta is involved in the trafficking of children.daveS
November 21, 2017
November
11
Nov
21
21
2017
10:23 AM
10
10
23
AM
PDT
DS, I hear your concerns. I am pretty well satisfied that the 9/11 attacks were a high-water mark of islamist terrorism masterminded by a demolition expert. On "birtherism," there are in fact a lot of unexplained issues and hidden things, but I suggest one question: did you ever look at the document layers in the released Birth certificate? I did, and it is troubling in a wider context. Though, my concerns on that past US President centre more on his obvious training as a marxian agitator in the cultural marxist school, his deliberate destabilisation of marriage and family, law and civil society and more. As for Pizza gate, I have already pointed out that speakeasies MUST exist, where are they? Why are they by and large so invisible, especially given what is now coming out on suppression for decades. KFkairosfocus
November 21, 2017
November
11
Nov
21
21
2017
09:57 AM
9
09
57
AM
PDT
KF, I can't say I disagree much with your #68. My concern is with the more farcical conspiracy theories that are, contrary to all common sense, taken seriously here in the US (e.g., the 9/11 "truth" movement, birtherism, PizzaGate). I honestly don't know how some of these theories gain a following. Is our capacity for critical thinking dwindling? Edit: "red-pill" Ugh. -_-daveS
November 21, 2017
November
11
Nov
21
21
2017
05:58 AM
5
05
58
AM
PDT
KF, there is a large part of the public that is very aware of what is going on. Slowly but surely others are being "red-pilled" by the slow, methodical release of information that shows a long, long history of deep state abuse and corruption. The JFK files reflect this corruption and details how Americans have been lied to. Drip, drip, drip. All we are seeing right is the tip of the iceberg. Way more to come, but through a process that keeps the ship running and red-pills as many people as possible along the way.William J Murray
November 21, 2017
November
11
Nov
21
21
2017
05:44 AM
5
05
44
AM
PDT
@KF, So, you don't disagree with the excerpt? It doesn't conflict with your position? Yet, you wrote:
KF: you eat food you trust will not poison you and drink water you trust will not give you serious stomach upsets. Faith is the right word, get over the so outdated revulsion.
If you don't disagree with the excerpt, then faith is not the right word. Faith is that which you accept as true without criticism. In fact, it is often acceptance despite significant criticism. "Here I stand" says the person of faith, which stops not because they tentatively accept a conjecture for which they have run out of good criticisms, but because of an irrational decision to suspend criticism.
KF: You use Mathematics that post Godel cannot be utterly certain as a system.
utterly certain as in positively prove? But that was covered in the excerpt and you didn't indicated you disagreed with that. Furthermore, this is addressed in the article...
Deutsch has said in other places, and I agree: it would be far better had we all decided to call scientific theories "scientific misconceptions" to remind ourselves of how tentative they are and that they will one day be superseded by some better misconception. Back now to Deutsch who elaborates on this:
"...expectations...apply only to (some) physical events, not to the truth or falsity of propositions in general – and particularly not to scientific theories: if we have any expectation about those, it should be that even our best and most fundamental theories are false. For instance, since quantum theory and general relativity are inconsistent with each other, we know that at least one of them is false, presumably both, and since they are required to be testable explanations, one or both must be inadequate for some phenomena. Yet since there is currently no single rival theory with a good explanation for all the explicanda of either of them, we rightly expect their predictions to be borne out in any currently proposed experiment. "
In other words although we know one at least (but presumably both) of our best, deepest theories of physics are false, there is no rival out there ready to replace them that can do the job of both just as well. And we must just recall that when we refute a theory we do not discard every single part of the theory. As a rule, very much is preserved. A short example from astronomy will suffice: Ptolemy explained that the universe was a geocentric arrangement where the Earth was at the centre orbited by other smaller spheres in circles. Copernicus theoretically did away with parts of this: replacing the Earth with the Sun but keeping circular orbits. Keplar likewise came and replaced the circles with ellipses and Galileo used observation to show how the Sun-centred model was superior and that there were objects orbiting Jupiter. Newton then provided a universal physical law in mathematical form allowing orbits to be precisely predicted and finally Einstein showed how Newton's Law was a good approximation to a better theory of the behaviour of spacetime which explained why the paths around the Sun were how they were. Each new improvement preserved much of the past (and crucially the idea that orbits were actually occurring, even if what was orbiting what, and why, changed as things improved). So refutation of a previously good theory - whether experimental or not - does not do away wholesale with everything that was valuable in the theory - it preserves much although ultimately demonstrating how the theory is fatally flawed and therefore ultimately false (with the proviso as Deutsch mentions below that theories are never entirely "logically contradicted" by some experimental observation. But this is a technical point we can return to later. Deutsch:
"A test of a theory is an experiment whose result could make the theory problematic. A crucial test – the centrepiece of scientific experimentation – can, on this view, take place only when there are at least two good explanations of the same explicandum (good, that is, apart from the fact of each other’s existence). Ideally it is an experiment such that every possible result will make all but one of those theories problematic, in which case the others will have been (tentatively) refuted. "
Now this is an amazingly important and clear articulation of what experiments are. Experiments test theories. But what can the results do? Well interestingly if the result of an experiment conflicts with a theory it does not necessarily rule out the theory. So take for example the more or less frequent media hype that can surround certain high-energy physics observations that are reported as "Einstein proved false!". Perhaps one of the more famous examples (detailed here) was about an experiment at the Large Hadron Collider where neutrinos apparently exceeded the speed of light in violation of special relativity (it turned out there was a cable incorrectly connected or some such). Now the results were actually false. But even if the results were true and neutrinos exceeded the speed of light this would not "prove" Einstein false or possibly cause us to reject relativity theory. What it would do is make relativity theory "problematic". Relativity theory would still be the best theory about how fast things can move and what happens to things as they move relative to one another. So a test of a theory: an experiment - even if it disagrees with the best theory going - is not a reason to reject that theory. After all, if you reject that theory, then what theory should you use? The second best theory? There is almost never a second best theory. But even if there were: that second best theory is "second best" for some good set of reasons. And if those reasons include things like "it cannot explain phenomena a, b, c, d, e and f while the first best theory can" then there still won't be a reason to turn to that theory in place of the first best.
Again, this is not faith. The idea that knowledge is true, justified belief requires faith. That is where we disagree.
KF: And you seem to miss the force of self-evident truths that are utterly certain.
The force of utterly trivial certainty? Even if that was the case, it would be trivially true.critical rationalist
November 21, 2017
November
11
Nov
21
21
2017
05:25 AM
5
05
25
AM
PDT
DS, I stopped following "celebrities" in the early 1970's, when Elizabeth Taylor was a big star. I could not tell who has been a star recently. The nearest thing is I see it looks like Plantinga just got a Templeton, though that has been severely degraded in my estimation. A few months back I realised several songs that caught my ear in the 80's when I heard snatches on radios I passed, were by ABBA. As for the human traffickers and sex abusers, hunt 'em down I say. But at the same time we must reckon with sobering warnings from say Sunday School: Joseph and Potiphar's Wife, Jezebel and Naboth's vineyard, Haman's genocide attempt, the travesty of justice in Jerusalem c AD 30 ending with sentencing a known innocent man to death. We need to be very careful not to get caught up in lynch-mob frenzies, slanders and worse. I do suspect that the JFK case exposes that the civil authorities haven't been trustworthy for decades, including policing authorities -- I doubt the official lone gunman narrative, starting with that head snapping back on being hit that final, definitively fatal time (sorry for the ugly image). As for the protection the press accorded him in his scandalous behaviour, that too is an issue. The fate of Ms Munroe -- a Hollywood connexion -- gives me pause, too; though I think it was suicide in the end. Hollywood is too often about the ugly business of beautiful women; the downmarket porn-perv stuff is outright videotaped prostitution being used to normalise the perverse even as that which is sane is despised. Some serious rethinking is needed. KFkairosfocus
November 21, 2017
November
11
Nov
21
21
2017
05:19 AM
5
05
19
AM
PDT
KF,
Who is Kanye West, what gives significance? Duck-Duck Go: some rapper or other. Is he in the CFR or other elite group? Or just good ole corrupt entertainment media? (How many such have struck a deal with the Devil by compromising conscience for fame and fortune?)
That was just an attempt at humor, but unfortunately it doesn't travel well. Kanye West is one of the most famous celebrities in the US, but for a number of reasons it's unlikely he's Illuminati.
And WJM’s remarks on hunting down the sexual predators are sounding good to me.
The fact that sexual predators are being exposed does indeed sound good. But I doubt that you will be receiving any satisfactory explication of the connections between this, the JFK files, the Mueller investigation, or what have you.daveS
November 21, 2017
November
11
Nov
21
21
2017
05:01 AM
5
05
01
AM
PDT
CR, you eat food you trust will not poison you and drink water you trust will not give you serious stomach upsets. Faith is the right word, get over the so outdated revulsion. You use Mathematics that post Godel cannot be utterly certain as a system. And you seem to miss the force of self-evident truths that are utterly certain. KFkairosfocus
November 20, 2017
November
11
Nov
20
20
2017
07:51 PM
7
07
51
PM
PDT
DS Who is Kanye West, what gives significance? Duck-Duck Go: some rapper or other. Is he in the CFR or other elite group? Or just good ole corrupt entertainment media? (How many such have struck a deal with the Devil by compromising conscience for fame and fortune?) Illuminism, proper died out after the Austrian secret police crushed it, and Weishaupt returned to orthodox Catholicism. But secret conspiracies or agendas of grand scope are real, look at Cecil "Rapist of Africa" Rhodes' first will and compare with the rise of a modded version of his globalised British Empire. Compare the mad follies that triggered WW I and a century of chaos since. I know there is a story of two Kennedy brothers contending for favours of Marilyn Monroe. Her death was odd, and how they died is passing strange too. Lee Harvey "Patsy" Oswald is one of the strangest figures of modern history. Sounds like an intel agency patsy indeed. As I wonder, could the man in Las Vegas have been? (I am suspicious about someone allegedly making a living from the Vegas houses -- sounds like money laundering to get dirty money into the above the table economy, and I am troubled by that first looooong burst, beyond what magazines up to 100 do. 120 - 140. Belt-fed. But then I went to a briefing on a new patrol boat today and used the word "ordnance" watching the reaction which told me all I needed to know. 30 kt 75 ft plus 20 ft zip boat are not meant to run down 50 kt drug boats but to move to cross fire ambush points. Which means armament appropriate to such a role, fill in the blanks . . . GPMGs for sure, possibly good ole Ma Deuce, and I don't rule out grenade MGs and mebbe even MANPADS if necessary. Kinda obvious. But UK officials get real nervous on mentioning arms.) There is no one global human cabal at work, but there are many destructive influences leading our civ to ruin. And WJM's remarks on hunting down the sexual predators are sounding good to me. KFkairosfocus
November 20, 2017
November
11
Nov
20
20
2017
07:47 PM
7
07
47
PM
PDT
In this context, we all walk by faith, the issue is to have reasonable, responsible faith. And so the obsession with oh you presume to have a set of ideas without error is an irrelevancy or even a strawman caricature.
Except I don't walk by faith that my conjectures are true because I consider them just that, educated guesses. So, you seem to have it backwards. What would be irresponsible would be to consider them immune to criticism. What of the possibly that I might be wrong? What would that look like? Well, if we try to take that seriously, for the purpose of criticism, that would imply that each and every idea I develop would start out totally and completely true, and that all observations should conform to that. Well, that would be problematic as theories I develop for the purpose of solving problems conflict with each other. As such, at least one of them must be false, which refutes this idea. Nor has any one managed to formulate a principle of induction that could be used, in practice, to justifiy theories as true or probable. My point being, I'm suggesting you are mistaken to assume that some ideas are actually immune from criticism. Again, if you doubt this, please provide examples of basic beliefs that are non-tatualties. For example, that A=A is one such tautology, in that it trivially true. What would not be trivially true is that something is an A, as opposed to a B or a C, etc. So, again, I'm suggesting that, what you call basic believes are just ideas that were currently lack good criticism of and that we tentatively accept with the possibility that good criticism might be forthcoming at some point in the future. From this article on the philosophy of science, which deconstructs the more formal arguments made in this paper....
"Scientific methodology, in turn, does not (nor could it validly) provide criteria for accepting a theory. Conjecture, and the correction of apparent errors and deficiencies, are the only processes at work. And just as the objective of science isn’t to find evidence that justifies theories as true or probable, so the objective of the methodology of science isn’t to find rules which, if followed, are guaranteed, or likely, to identify true theories as true. There can be no such rules. A methodology is itself merely a (philosophical) theory – a convention, as Popper (1959) put it, actual or proposed – that has been conjectured to solve philosophical problems, and is subject to criticism for how well or badly it seems to do that. There cannot be an argument that certifies it as true or probable, any more than there can for scientific theories."
Here is just about the most contentious piece of philosophy that Popper and Deutsch (or any Popperian/Critical Rationalist) proposes about how science works. It is poorly understood and the opposing world view is still the dominant philosophy of science even though it is false. The false idea - subscribed almost universally by scientists, philosophers and laymen alike is that science somehow provides a way of demonstrating that certain theories are true or close to true or probably true. And moreover that the more one gathers evidence for some theory T, then the more likely T is true. What Deutsch, following Karl Popper is saying here is that there is no such process as that. There is no method in science, no set of rules to follow that can demonstrate theories as either true or probably true. The whole purpose of science is not to "support" theories with evidence. That is a complete misconception. The truth is that science is about correcting errors in our explanations. This is a completely different view of science to what most people have. Now some, admittedly, have read some Popper, or Deutsch - but are afraid to, or perhaps just confused about, fully taking the step to actually appreciate the significance of this. I say "afraid" because there seems to be some concern that if one too strongly endorses even a true theory like this, one might seem dogmatic. I have a person in mind here and that is: Sam Harris. Sam is an otherwise brilliant philosopher on many matters but this is one of his missteps. He at times endorses Popper, other times Kuhn and still other times induction. I won't go down this rabbit hole here, but I just observe that smart people struggle to really grapple with the centrality of what science is even all about. Now many scientists today do not want to call themselves "Popperians" or "Critical Rationalists" (which is to say they do not want to endorse the idea that science is not about "supporting theories with evidence") and so they may call themselves "empiricists" or many these days "Bayesians". For a detailed critique of Bayesianism as a philosophy of science or an epistemology see my other page here (opens in new tab): http://www.bretthall.org/bayesian-epistemology.html In brief, however: a Bayesian is essentially someone who thinks that repeatedly observing phenomena allows them to build up a probability that a particular theory is true. They can assign a number between 0% and 100% that a given theory is true, or something like this. So if the result of an experiment continues to come out the same way the number climbs closer and closer to 100% - but perhaps it can never quite reach 100% - but that's okay because science does not need to generate "certainly true" theories - just "probably true". So perhaps 90% is okay. Or 95%. Or maybe 99.99999% at the 5-sigma confidence level (if you understand statistics). But one need merely consider the question: What probability would a Bayesian assign to Newton's theory of gravity being true any time prior to finding it false? If a scientist were actually a Bayesian in the year 1900 then it would seem that every experiment ever devised to test Newton's theory of gravity always corroborated it. Newton's theory correctly predicted the outcome of every well designed and executed test of it prior to and including the year 1900 (and a little later). A Bayesian could do statistics on any prediction you like and generate some number and the number would be pushing the ceiling of the magic 100% number. Newton's theory of gravity - according to that philosophy of science - would be very very very close to certainly true. ?And yet, ultimately, it was shown to be false. It was shown false by a crucial experiment on May 29, 1919, the great physicist Arthur Eddington measured the amount by which starlight was bent as it passed by the Sun during a solar eclipse. Newton's theory predicted one number, Einstein's another. The amount of bending was in agreement with Einstein's General Relativity but not in agreement with Newton. Newton's theory was then refuted. So far from being very very close to true because of all the experiments that it had ever predicted the outcomes of up until then accurately, it was shown false by a crucial test that pitted it against a rival. Now General Relativity is in the same position that Newton's theory was prior to around 1900. It is not "probably true" or "true" or anything like that. It contains some truth - and more truth than Newton's (which was closer to true than any random guess would be). But in neither case can we say the theory is true - only that it contains some truth (we don't know what and it doesn't matter anyway - the theories can be used to help us control reality around us by making predictions and creating technologies to solve our problems). At any time, to paraphrase Thomas Huxley: the beautiful theory could be slain by some ugly fact. Indeed we have to expect that it will be at some point. General Relativity is at odds with Quantum Theory. They are mutually incompatible for reasons beyond the scope of my present piece here (but in brief: the dispute may come down to a disagreement about whether the most fundamental parts of reality consist of discrete or continuous quantities). Deutsch has said in other places, and I agree: it would be far better had we all decided to call scientific theories "scientific misconceptions" to remind ourselves of how tentative they are and that they will one day be superseded by some better misconception.
I suspect that, even if you only read the above excerpt, you will find aspects of the above that you disagree with. And it will represent a significant, yet non strawman caricature of your position.critical rationalist
November 20, 2017
November
11
Nov
20
20
2017
06:56 PM
6
06
56
PM
PDT
KF, All these things are connected. I'll bet you didn't know that Kanye West was Illuminati, did you? :-odaveS
November 20, 2017
November
11
Nov
20
20
2017
06:45 PM
6
06
45
PM
PDT
WJM, JFK files? Those are connected? KFkairosfocus
November 20, 2017
November
11
Nov
20
20
2017
05:29 PM
5
05
29
PM
PDT
KF @55: I'm quite pleased with the way the administration is orchestrating this takedown of the cartels. Most people don't even know what is happening, and I believe that's all part of the plan - to cause as little disruption and social upheaval as possible, and frame all the different aspects as largely unrelated events, like the arrest of all the Saudi Princes, Mueller's investigation, the release of the JFK files, etc. There's so much disinformation and counter-disinformation floating around it's unbelievable. So far, so good. It's definitely wild and crazy times we are living in.William J Murray
November 20, 2017
November
11
Nov
20
20
2017
10:27 AM
10
10
27
AM
PDT
CR, with all due respect, your obsession with "criticism" seems to lead you to miss the point that we should give a true and fair view of states of affairs if we are to be responsible thinkers -- e.g. not setting up strawman caricatures of theism. It is astonishing to see you belabour the concept that we theists (broadly speaking) conceive of God in very general -- even, generic -- terms, as we do, but that is simply to describe a state of affairs. The criticism shoe here is on the other foot, in short. Where, secondly, I often speak of ethical [mono-]theism by way of emphasis as that aspect is too often overlooked but is crucial. And, third, no, you plainly strayed into the domain of verificationism above; I simply pointed out, we should not go there. Fourth, obsessing about criticism has led you to overlook what is plainly pointed out: warrant in light of logical reasoning and linked inferences and judgements, which can in comparatively few cases be utterly certain [think of self evidence]; in some others is morally certain [we would be irresponsible to treat something X warranted to such a degree as though we could presume it false]; in others, empirically highly tested and shown reliable; in others, prudent, and so forth. A sensible person respects degrees of warrant available for classes of cases and our need to operate in a going-concern world, so will not impose some procrustean bed or other nor give in to blanket hyperskepticism, nor will play the selective hyperskepticism con game of demanding unrealistic degree of warrant for what is unpalatable. For one instance, had you bothered to read the 101b level discussion I linked above you would see that a key example of self evident, undeniable truth is this -- following Josiah Royce and Elton Trueblood: error exists, E. The attempted denial ~ E, in simple terms, boils down to it is an error to assert E, which immediately explodes any possibility that ~E can be true, leaving E as undeniably true. A particularly humbling self evident truth, though, which is itself a warning and motivation to seek as good a warrant for what we believe and act on as we can reasonably get, subject to the limitations of finitude, fallibility and urgency of needing to act today . . . rather than when it is too late . . . in a going-concern world. In this context, we all walk by faith, the issue is to have reasonable, responsible faith. And so the obsession with oh you presume to have a set of ideas without error is an irrelevancy or even a strawman caricature. I suggest, you need to drop it. Gotta go pick up wife from jury duty. G'day KFkairosfocus
November 20, 2017
November
11
Nov
20
20
2017
07:48 AM
7
07
48
AM
PDT
Next, the implication of falsificationism as a criterion of meaningfulness also needs to reckon with the now sixty year old collapse of the verification principle, which cannot meet its own criterion and is self referentially incoherent.
Popper's criticism was leveled agains positivism and verificationism. So, you seem to be confused. What I'm asking is, if ideas are not subject to criticism then how might we find and discard errors in our ideas. If you say that isn't necessary, then you're saying there are no errors in those ideas. But it's unclear how you can get from not having an idea to having an idea that is without errors. Perhaps you can outline how it's possible to actually take that path, step by step, in ethical theism? Why do you think you'll end up with an idea that is actually without errors, as opposed you merely believing that is the case? Again, it's unclear how this would work, in practice.critical rationalist
November 20, 2017
November
11
Nov
20
20
2017
07:20 AM
7
07
20
AM
PDT
@KF
If you are to simply be fair and accurate in understanding what ethical theists mean in speaking of God, you need to accept what they mean rather than imposing alien concepts drawn from your particular spin on Popper’s thoughts about science etc.
First, are you saying there is such a thing as a non-ethical theist? Second, it's not that I didn't think that was your position. I didn't want to put words in your mouth. I wanted you to explicitly make that claim. Specifically, you are claiming that idea is immune to criticism. So, are you also claiming the idea that it is immune to criticism is also immune to criticism? Again, how could you find errors in those ideas if you hold them immune to criticism? It seems that the entire enterprise is circular.critical rationalist
November 20, 2017
November
11
Nov
20
20
2017
07:07 AM
7
07
07
AM
PDT
// correction #56 //
Reading on Popper I came to learn that he claims that self-predication self-prediction is logically impossible.
Origenes
November 20, 2017
November
11
Nov
20
20
2017
05:20 AM
5
05
20
AM
PDT
Kairosfocus @54 Excellent arguments. The verification principle, which cannot meet its own criterion and is self-referentially incoherent and, yes, the epistemological skyhook. - - - - - - And now something completely different ... Reading on Popper I came to learn that he claims that self-predication is logically impossible ... and then it hit me that there is an interesting argument here — I call it 'the argument from self-prediction': (1) If naturalism is true, then consciousness is an effect of brain processes. (2) An effect cannot control its cause. (3) An effect cannot predict its cause nor itself. (4) I can predict my actions — I predict that I will post these sentences as post #56 in this thread. (5) Naturalism is false What do you think?Origenes
November 20, 2017
November
11
Nov
20
20
2017
04:14 AM
4
04
14
AM
PDT
WJM, looks like the morally bankrupt elites imagine that by playing their habitual distractive games they can weather the storm of the exposure of widespread sex abuse and human trafficking. Indeed, it is astonishing to see 20 years later, oh maybe those others were right about Bill Clinton 20 years ago, now that they want to cynically play the other side of the street to attack threatening targets. What are they going to say when those they have abused, scorned, slandered and trampled on with media power start coming for them with pine-pitch and feathers? (Maybe, literally?) KFkairosfocus
November 19, 2017
November
11
Nov
19
19
2017
06:47 PM
6
06
47
PM
PDT
CR, that's doubling down. If you are to simply be fair and accurate in understanding what ethical theists mean in speaking of God, you need to accept what they mean rather than imposing alien concepts drawn from your particular spin on Popper's thoughts about science etc. -- the reason why I intervened earlier in the first instance. If you insist on setting up and knocking over strawman caricatures and refusing to deal with the substantial points put up before you, you reveal volumes on how your critical rationalism fails to be a serious or responsible view. Next, the implication of falsificationism as a criterion of meaningfulness also needs to reckon with the now sixty year old collapse of the verification principle, which cannot meet its own criterion and is self referentially incoherent. Your further failure to understand and acknowledge the simple fact -- as was laid out in brief using a light degree of abstract symbolising -- that warrant (including inter alia "proofs") or explanation comes in chains so that worldviews, frames of thought, fields of study and arguments alike face the issue of impossible infinite regress thus are forced to in practice have a finitely remote start-point speaks further volumes on the conceptual deficit you must make up. As to how chains of warrant may be tested for soundness, you clearly needed to heed the triple test on comparative difficulties criterion laid out: factual adequacy, coherence and explanatory balance. Where, distinct identity is self-evidently real (A vs not-A) and carries with it the corollaries LOI, LNC, LEM. Simply ponder world W with some distinct A so that W = {A | not-A}. The pretence of standing outside this while using the distinct identities of say letters speaks for itself. KFkairosfocus
November 19, 2017
November
11
Nov
19
19
2017
06:43 PM
6
06
43
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5

Leave a Reply