Materialism

[StevenO]

Steven Im happy to inform you that you are not a proponent of Poppers theories!

Every description in the lecture excerpt ,Popper would proudly claim as his own . He would laugh at the idea that the content of the concepts in his deductions come from the "senses". He would laugh at the idea that induction is logical whatever. He rejected the idea that any appeal to observation as a basis for definition was valid. In fact he rejected that talking about where the meaning of concepts come from was important at all. He rejected that one could provide "proof" [a positive success word]of anything!

You are not familiar with Popper it seems.

By the way you switched from claiming a strawman was present in the description,which is the claim it was not true of Poppers theories,to it having a negative connotation.

I can support all of my claims above from Poppers own words.

It seems you have been completely brainwashed. I have only used Popper's own words as well, please show me yours, without the Objectivists use of illogic as a "proof" of the opposite interpretation.

Here is a quote for you from Wiki:

Knowledge, for Popper, was objective, both in the sense that it is objectively true (or truthlike), and also in the sense that knowledge has an ontological status (i.e., knowledge as object) independent of the knowing subject.

[Plasmatic]

I'm gonna ignore your ad hominem and start uncovering your false premises with this quote:

Now in my view there is no such thing as induction. Thus inference to theories, from singular statements which are ‘verified by experience’ [whatever that may mean], is logically inadmissible. Theories are therefore never empirically verifiable. If we wish to avoid the positivist mistake of eliminating, by our criterion of demarcation, the theoretical systems of natural science, then we must choose a criterion which allows us to admit to the domain of empirical science even statements which cannot be verified.
But I shall certainly admit a system as empirical or scientific only if it is capable of being tested by experience. These considerations suggest that not the verifiability but the falsifiability of a system is to be taken as a criterion of demarcation. In other words:I shall not require of a scientific system that it shall be capable of being singled out, once and for all, in a positive sense; but I shall require that its logical form shall be such that it can be singled out, by means of empirical tests, in a negative sense ; It must be possible for an empirical scientific system to be refuted by experience.

Karl Popper
The logic of Scientific Discovery

It takes too long to copy this *&^% so Ill do the rest later. One is left wondering what you've actually read of Popper.

[Plasmatic]

StevenO wrote:
The "absence of falsification" is a deliberate misrepresentation of Popper, which does not surprise me.

In point of fact, no conclusive disproof of a theory can ever be produced; for it is always-possible to say that the experimental results are not reliable, or that the discrepancies which are asserted to exist between the experimental results and the theory are only apparent and that they will disappear with the advance of our understanding. (In the struggle against Einstein, both these arguments were often used in support of Newtonian mechanics, and similar arguments abound in the field of the social sciences.) If you insist on strict proof (or strict disproof) in the empirical sciences, you will never benefit from experience, and never learn from it how wrong you are.

Popper
Logic of Scientific Discoveries

Which makes his statement:

."theory is scientific only in so far as it is falsifiable, and should be given up as soon as it is falsified
- Karl Popper

An absolute contradiction!

[StevenO]

I'm gonna ignore your ad hominem and start uncovering your false premises with this quote:

Now in my view there is no such thing as induction. Thus inference to theories, from singular statements which are ‘verified by experience’ [whatever that may mean], is logically inadmissible. Theories are therefore never empirically verifiable. If we wish to avoid the positivist mistake of eliminating, by our criterion of demarcation, the theoretical systems of natural science, then we must choose a criterion which allows us to admit to the domain of empirical science even statements which cannot be verified.
But I shall certainly admit a system as empirical or scientific only if it is capable of being tested by experience. These considerations suggest that not the verifiability but the falsifiability of a system is to be taken as a criterion of demarcation. In other words:I shall not require of a scientific system that it shall be capable of being singled out, once and for all, in a positive sense; but I shall require that its logical form shall be such that it can be singled out, by means of empirical tests, in a negative sense ; It must be possible for an empirical scientific system to be refuted by experience.

Karl Popper
The logic of Scientific Discovery

It takes too long to copy this *&^% so Ill do the rest later. One is left wondering what you've actually read of Popper.

I'm sorry if I offended you. It's just so obvious that you see everything through Objectivist glasses. The above is a good example. What every rational person will read in the above is:

• There is no inference to general theories possible from objective facts, which means we have to start at "this is a white dog" and go from there.
• A theory is good until it has to be replaced by a more complex one since an objective fact falsified it.

To understand Popper's position on induction, read the following:

Popper claims to have found a solution to the problem of induction. His reply is characteristic, and ties in with his criterion of falsifiability. He states that while there is no way to prove that the sun will rise, it is possible to formulate the theory that every day the sun will rise—if it does not rise on some particular day, the theory will be falsified and will have to be replaced by a different one. Until that day, there is no need to reject the assumption that the theory is true. Neither is it rational according to Popper to instead make the more complex assumption that the sun has risen until a given day, but will stop so doing the next day, or similar statements with additional conditions.

Such a theory would be true with higher probability, because it cannot be attacked so easily: To falsify the first one, it is sufficient to find that sun has stopped rising; to falsify the second one, one additionally needs the assumption that the given day has not yet been reached.

[StevenO]

StevenO wrote:
The "absence of falsification" is a deliberate misrepresentation of Popper, which does not surprise me.

In point of fact, no conclusive disproof of a theory can ever be produced; for it is always-possible to say that the experimental results are not reliable, or that the discrepancies which are asserted to exist between the experimental results and the theory are only apparent and that they will disappear with the advance of our understanding. (In the struggle against Einstein, both these arguments were often used in support of Newtonian mechanics, and similar arguments abound in the field of the social sciences.) If you insist on strict proof (or strict disproof) in the empirical sciences, you will never benefit from experience, and never learn from it how wrong you are.

Popper
Logic of Scientific Discoveries

Which makes his statement:

."theory is scientific only in so far as it is falsifiable, and should be given up as soon as it is falsified
- Karl Popper

An absolute contradiction!

You present it as a contradiction, but that is a strawman. Popper's position is that the best scientific theory is the one that is most easily falsified, but has not been falsified yet. It is rational to take the theory that is most easily falsified since that can be done with the greatest certainty, to avoid the arguments you show above.

I hold that current physics is such a mess since the argument you show above is abused to defend theories that should have been thrown in trash long time ago.

[altonhare]

Denying reality is not going to help your case. Just Google "define: faith" and these two meanings pop up.

Gotcha, google=reality. From now on, instead of thinking, I'll google,"What should I think? What is reality?" Thanks Stephen!

You just want to keep it simple and reserve the word "faith" for religion and "belief" for science.

Yes, I want to keep things simple. One word means a claim a person makes which they can describe how they would revoke and the other word means a claim that person cannot describe how they would revoke. One word for one, another word for the other. One for religion, the other for nonreligion.

That is not how language is used.

Who the hell are you? The language Pope?

A scientist can have both, but a scientist is at all times rational and thus willing to change his faith or beliefs based on new insights.

Web has argued in the past that there is no difference between faith and belief. In this way he would like to dismantle science, merging it with religion, and make everyone religious. The distinction I've drawn is my response to him. In order to keep confusion and miscommunication (which are everpresent plagues in debate) to a minimum I do, indeed, want to "keep things simple" (by which I mean clear, unambiguous, non contradictory).

Science is the testing of theories. There are more pitfalls in that than dreaming them up.

Irrelevant. All that is required of a nonreligious belief is that the person state at least 1 observation that would convince them to give up the belief.

If you call testing "irrelevant" then you have no idea what science is apparently or you want to do science without the real work. A theory is useless if it cannot be tested. You will have to verify that the one observation is a valid falsification of the theory. Somebody could have painted the swan black. Also, a black swan does'nt invalidate any previous observations of white swans, it just falsifies the theory that all swans are white, to be replaced with a more accurate theory.

The quantity (large or small) of pitfalls is irrelevant in the instant context.

As far as "falsification", it is subjective. One person is convinced and another isn't.

"All swans are white" isn't a scientific theory, nor a theory of any kind. First, what is meant by "swan" and "white"? If the presenter points at an animal and say "swan" then that is what a swan is. It then would make no sense to talk about "all swans" because "swan" is attached to a single thing.

If the presenter defines a swan as that which has feathers, is taller than this stick but shorter than that stick, etc. then "all swans are white" has nothing to do with science. All the presenter is saying is that he will never find something with feathers, between these heights, that is not white. Who cares? Maybe he will, maybe not. How exactly will he define white objectvely, anyway? He comes across a swan and declares it white, but his colleague says it's ivory. They're not doing science. Science doesn't care whether any particular person eventually finds a black swan. What a waste of time.

[webolife]

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...
"...falsification... is subjective..." interesting statement coming from Altonhare.
How can anyone do "objective" science then?

[altonhare]

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...
"...falsification... is subjective..." interesting statement coming from Altonhare.
How can anyone do "objective" science then?

That's why falsification isn't a part of science proper. Science is just the body of non-contradictory explanations proposed by humans. I have consistently stated on these forums that there is no such thing as "proof" for a theory, I have stated that "evidence" is just used to convince people.

An individual's belief in an explanation/theory is nonreligious if they can name a particular observation/scenario that would convince them otherwise. Otherwise it is religious. And religious preferences are personal matters, like sexual preferences.

[StevenO]

Denying reality is not going to help your case. Just Google "define: faith" and these two meanings pop up.

Gotcha, google=reality. From now on, instead of thinking, I'll google,"What should I think? What is reality?" Thanks Stephen!

Language is not math. It is used between people, not defined for exclusive use in science. In that sense Google is quite useful.

You just want to keep it simple and reserve the word "faith" for religion and "belief" for science.

Yes, I want to keep things simple. One word means a claim a person makes which they can describe how they would revoke and the other word means a claim that person cannot describe how they would revoke. One word for one, another word for the other. One for religion, the other for nonreligion.

Just convince the rest of world that they should use your definition then if you want to use it in an open discussion.

That is not how language is used.

Who the hell are you? The language Pope?

It was not me redefining the word "faith". I was just pointing you out that the word has multiple meanings.

A scientist can have both, but a scientist is at all times rational and thus willing to change his faith or beliefs based on new insights.

Web has argued in the past that there is no difference between faith and belief. In this way he would like to dismantle science, merging it with religion, and make everyone religious. The distinction I've drawn is my response to him. In order to keep confusion and miscommunication (which are everpresent plagues in debate) to a minimum I do, indeed, want to "keep things simple" (by which I mean clear, unambiguous, non contradictory).

I don't agree with Web, although I could see his point. But "faith" does not mean "a strong belief", it means "complete confidence in".

Science is the testing of theories. There are more pitfalls in that than dreaming them up.

Irrelevant. All that is required of a nonreligious belief is that the person state at least 1 observation that would convince them to give up the belief.

If you call testing "irrelevant" then you have no idea what science is apparently or you want to do science without the real work. A theory is useless if it cannot be tested. You will have to verify that the one observation is a valid falsification of the theory. Somebody could have painted the swan black. Also, a black swan does'nt invalidate any previous observations of white swans, it just falsifies the theory that all swans are white, to be replaced with a more accurate theory.

The quantity (large or small) of pitfalls is irrelevant in the instant context.

As far as "falsification", it is subjective. One person is convinced and another isn't.

Now I know why you think testing is unimportant. You just want to "believe" in an experimental outcome

"All swans are white" isn't a scientific theory, nor a theory of any kind. First, what is meant by "swan" and "white"? If the presenter points at an animal and say "swan" then that is what a swan is. It then would make no sense to talk about "all swans" because "swan" is attached to a single thing.

If the presenter defines a swan as that which has feathers, is taller than this stick but shorter than that stick, etc. then "all swans are white" has nothing to do with science. All the presenter is saying is that he will never find something with feathers, between these heights, that is not white. Who cares? Maybe he will, maybe not. How exactly will he define white objectvely, anyway? He comes across a swan and declares it white, but his colleague says it's ivory. They're not doing science. Science doesn't care whether any particular person eventually finds a black swan. What a waste of time.

It looks you are trying to following Popper's line of reasoning to show that induction cannot be used for deriving general theories. Unfortunately you get lost because you want to have it both ways. An objective fact can be: "I point at a white swan", then from finding that we have 300 observations of these animals in a row we could formulate the theory "all swans are white", which is good until a black one comes along, which could redefine the theory in "swans are large waterbirds with a long neck".

[altonhare]

Language is not math.

Math is a language.

Just convince the rest of world that they should use your definition then if you want to use it in an open discussion.

No, I do not need to "convince" anyone, and certainly not the "rest of the world". I define my words purely to help my audience understand what I'm saying. Like Web said, HE doesn't use these words that way, but he can accept them for the purposes of discussion.

I don't agree with Web, although I could see his point. But "faith" does not mean "a strong belief", it means "complete confidence in".

Exactly. That's the difference between faith and belief. A belief is a claim which one can imagine changing pending a specific observation. Faith is a claim which one cannot imagine changing pending any specific observtion. I have challenged Web on his claim that light is "instantaneous", I have challenged him to name an observation that would convince him otherwise. He has failed to do so. I argue that his claim that light is instantaneous is currently faith, i.e. religious.

Now I know why you think testing is unimportant. You just want to "believe" in an experimental outcome

It makes no sense to "believe" in an experiment or the data. A theory/explanation of the result one may be inclined to believe or disbelieve. i.e. it makes no sense to say I "believe" that the ball fell at ~9.8 m/s2, it is the explanation of the event (theory) that each member of the audience decides to believe or not after the presenter finishes explaining his/her theory.

we could formulate the theory "all swans are white", which is good until a black one comes along, which could redefine the theory in "swans are large waterbirds with a long neck".

All swans are white is not a theory! At best it's a wild guess about what you'll discover one day. You might guess right or wrong, nobody can tell the future. A theory is an explanation of a consummated event. We explain what we observED. Why have all the swans we observed been white? Why did the dinosaurs go extinct? Why hasn't Mercury exited the SS?

[StevenO]

Language is not math.

Math is a language.

A rigorously defined language, unlike human language.

Just convince the rest of world that they should use your definition then if you want to use it in an open discussion.

No, I do not need to "convince" anyone, and certainly not the "rest of the world". I define my words purely to help my audience understand what I'm saying. Like Web said, HE doesn't use these words that way, but he can accept them for the purposes of discussion.

I think you should use a header on top of all your posts then containing all these definitions. At least people would be aware you have redefined common words. It is not the first time we have this kind of discussion.

Now I know why you think testing is unimportant. You just want to "believe" in an experimental outcome

It makes no sense to "believe" in an experiment or the data. A theory/explanation of the result one may be inclined to believe or disbelieve. i.e. it makes no sense to say I "believe" that the ball fell at ~9.8 m/s2, it is the explanation of the event (theory) that each member of the audience decides to believe or not after the presenter finishes explaining his/her theory.

The purpose of testing is to rigorously define the outcome of an experiment, so it is not up to the audience to believe it or not. In this case it could be that one tests if balls accelerate towards the surface of the earth if you drop them. Measuring an acceleration of 9.8m/s^2 +-0.1 would be considered solid evidence supporting the theory.

We could formulate the theory "all swans are white", which is good until a black one comes along, which could redefine the theory in "swans are large waterbirds with a long neck".

All swans are white is not a theory! At best it's a wild guess about what you'll discover one day. You might guess right or wrong, nobody can tell the future. A theory is an explanation of a consummated event. We explain what we observED. Why have all the swans we observed been white? Why did the dinosaurs go extinct? Why hasn't Mercury exited the SS?

Why is "all swans are white" not a theory in your view? Why do you call it a "wild guess" if it was based on multiple observations? Why do you insist on limiting theories to answering "why" questions? What is a "consummated" event? An observation? How could a theory be ever tested if the results would not be observable? What use is a theory that cannot be observed aka. tested?

[altonhare]

The purpose of testing is to rigorously define the outcome of an experiment, so it is not up to the audience to believe it or not.

Well, the audience certainly has to decide if they believe you got what you got in your lab, unless they were there themselves.

In this case it could be that one tests if balls accelerate towards the surface of the earth if you drop them.

Again, that is not a theory. Science embodies theories/explanations of consummated events. We explain why the ball fell (past tense).

Otherwise, you let go of the ball, and a bird swoops down and flies off with it. Now your "theory" is falsified. No excuses, you didn't say "unless a bird catches it".

Nobody can tell the future. The only people who claim to be able to predict the future are scammers and con artists trying to pull the wool over your eyes long enough to steal your wallet.

Measuring an acceleration of 9.8m/s^2 +-0.1 would be considered solid evidence supporting the theory.

What does the number 9.8 have to do with whether the ball fell or not? 9.8 is "how much" the ball fell to the ground. It's a quantitative concept. Whether the ball fell or not is a qualitative, yes or no concept. Science explains why the ball fell (or not). Anyone can measure how much the ball fell, that's easy.

Why is "all swans are white" not a theory in your view?

A theory, a scientific theory, is an explanation. It poses a possible mechanism for something that happened. We learn something. "All swans are white" does not explain anything nor does it teach us anything new. It is practically meaningless. It means "I don't think I'll find a long-necked, flying, feathered, etc. thing that isn't white". Okay, good for you, you don't think you will. I couldn't care less. Not only do I not care at all about your opinion on what you will not see in your puny lifetime, I doubt if anyone else in the world besides you can know exactly what you mean by white, so again nobody else cares. If we see a swan and I think it isn't white but you think it is, it's a meaningless debate. We are both looking at the same thing, whatever we choose to call it or label it. Nothing is proven or disproven and we have still learned nothing.

Why do you call it a "wild guess" if it was based on multiple observations?

Any claim about the future is, ultimately, a guess. Whether one qualifies it with the word "wild" or not is just a matter of preference. Nobody can tell the future, any claim about the future is a guess.

I call it "wild" because it's arbitrary. You have no idea how many swans there are. Whether you've seen 0.00001% of them or 99%. You don't know if you just happened to see the .00001% of swans that are white. You have no idea WHY a swan would be white. Explaining why, that might teach you something. Then when you found a black swan you might actually understand why it's black instead of white.

If you had a theory I thought was plausibe for explaining swan color, I wouldn't consider your guesses quite so "wild". If I thought your theory was good enough I might even start making guesses about the future too. But the *theory* is in the why, the understanding, the explanation. The "prediction" is just to impress me and others, to make us think you know some deep secret that we don't, to make us want to learn from you.

What is a "consummated" event? An observation?

A consummated event is something that has already taken place. Something that happenED.

How could a theory be ever tested if the results would not be observable?

A scientific theory explains a past event, which invariably means it was observed.

[Plasmatic]

Science should says "All swans are white because_____." But of course that's an inductive endeavour!

[altonhare]

Science should says "All swans are white because_____." But of course that's an inductive endeavour!

In science we would say this/these swan(s) is/are white because... We'd explain why all swans we have observed are white. It would make no sense to explain an observation that hasn't happened yet.

[StevenO]

In this case it could be that one tests if balls accelerate towards the surface of the earth if you drop them.

Again, that is not a theory. Science embodies theories/explanations of consummated events. We explain why the ball fell (past tense).

Otherwise, you let go of the ball, and a bird swoops down and flies off with it. Now your "theory" is falsified. No excuses, you didn't say "unless a bird catches it".

That would be an uncontrolled experiment. Does it mean that you actually agree with me that there are many pitfalls in testing theories?

Nobody can tell the future. The only people who claim to be able to predict the future are scammers and con artists trying to pull the wool over your eyes long enough to steal your wallet.

That's a nonsensical statement. I can predict the future quite accurately: "The sun will rise tomorrow". Prove me wrong.

Measuring an acceleration of 9.8m/s^2 +-0.1 would be considered solid evidence supporting the theory.

What does the number 9.8 have to do with whether the ball fell or not? 9.8 is "how much" the ball fell to the ground. It's a quantitative concept. Whether the ball fell or not is a qualitative, yes or no concept. Science explains why the ball fell (or not). Anyone can measure how much the ball fell, that's easy.

That is a nonsensical statement as well. The theory was that objects accelerate towards earth if they are dropped. Observing if something moves towards earth is something else than doing a controlled acceleration measurement with 1% accurary.

Why is "all swans are white" not a theory in your view?

A theory, a scientific theory, is an explanation.

Why does a theory need to be an explanation??? Most physical theories are empirical. Newton's equations are empirical and they have been doing fine for hundreds of years.

It poses a possible mechanism for something that happened. We learn something. "All swans are white" does not explain anything nor does it teach us anything new. It is practically meaningless. It means "I don't think I'll find a long-necked, flying, feathered, etc. thing that isn't white". Okay, good for you, you don't think you will. I couldn't care less. Not only do I not care at all about your opinion on what you will not see in your puny lifetime, I doubt if anyone else in the world besides you can know exactly what you mean by white, so again nobody else cares. If we see a swan and I think it isn't white but you think it is, it's a meaningless debate. We are both looking at the same thing, whatever we choose to call it or label it. Nothing is proven or disproven and we have still learned nothing.

I have no clue what you try to convey and from reading that you consider it a waste of time as well, I would'nt know what to do with your philosophy. Seeing a white swan and pointing at it is the finest proof you will ever get IMHO.

Why do you call it a "wild guess" if it was based on multiple observations?

Any claim about the future is, ultimately, a guess. Whether one qualifies it with the word "wild" or not is just a matter of preference. Nobody can tell the future, any claim about the future is a guess.

I call it "wild" because it's arbitrary. You have no idea how many swans there are. Whether you've seen 0.00001% of them or 99%. You don't know if you just happened to see the .00001% of swans that are white. You have no idea WHY a swan would be white. Explaining why, that might teach you something. Then when you found a black swan you might actually understand why it's black instead of white.

If you had a theory I thought was plausibe for explaining swan color, I wouldn't consider your guesses quite so "wild". If I thought your theory was good enough I might even start making guesses about the future too. But the *theory* is in the why, the understanding, the explanation. The "prediction" is just to impress me and others, to make us think you know some deep secret that we don't, to make us want to learn from you.

What is a "consummated" event? An observation?

A consummated event is something that has already taken place. Something that happenED.

How could a theory be ever tested if the results would not be observable?

A scientific theory explains a past event, which invariably means it was observed.

Again I have no idea what philosophy you try to convey, but I have the impression that you think that only inductive theories are worthwhile. Popper has shown that using induction one can either just express tautologies or do a free synthesis of idea's (aka. "art"), which is fantasy. In either case it can be proven that there is no induction from observed events to general theories possible.