seebs

Yeah, I've heard of all of it, and none of it changes my statement, because you *still* don't seem to understand what I'm saying.

I'm saying that science depends on the assertion that, if it is "true" to say that a meter read 102, it is "false" to say that, at the same time, the same meter read 47. Without that, what point is there in taking measurements? We could write down anything we wanted, at random or at whim. To say that some observations "correctly describe the world", and others "do not correctly describe the world", is to say that some are true and some are false.

seebs

That depends on how you mean it. In the sense that humans, all of us, are irrational around the edges, and nothing but humans is known to form opinions on these issues, sure. In the sense you appear to mean it, where any supernatural belief at all is blown all out of proportion, until the object of your ridicule is accused of believing that there are no natural explanations anywhere at all, you're just wrong.

If I meet two people, and one says "I am rational", and the other says "I believe I am mostly rational, but I am sometimes irrational", the second is almost certainly more rational.

Starboy

I don't know what you mean by excercise our powers enough. Are you suggesting a pax americana?

I agree there does come a time when leathal force is what is called for. As to your example of North Korea, yes they are a threat to world stability, and you may be right that the wisest course of action might be military action. But consider this, we also were in a war with the second largest power in the world, the USSR, and they did posses enough nuclear weapons and the capablity to deliver them and destroy most of the US and yet we won that war without a single direct conflict. All options should be considered and war should be the last option. In the past the US has had a policy to go to war only if attacked. I think it is a wise policy. Yes be prepared for war, let your opponent know you are prepared for war, but also let them know that you will not fight if they don't. Under those circumstance, if the opposition is not run by mad men, there is a chance that the conflict can be resolved without bloodshed.

What alarms me about our president is that he views things in biblical terms such as good and evil. This is dangerous for several reasons 1) It is too simplistic. Such a point of view restricts your mental picture of the options you think are open to you. After all if you think that your opponent is the devil, well gee, there is only one way to deal with a devil and that is too kill it immediately. 2) It has a similar effect on your opponent. If they think that you see them as a devil then they will think, Oh my, they are gonna kill me. Get out the guns and kill them first! 3) If you think that they are evil then you must be good. And if you are good then your cause must be just and moral. This is the argument of a tyrant. 4) If President Bush thinks on such important issue in such simplistic terms then what other important policies is he bunging up because of his first century viewpoint? Separation of church and state? Medical research? Economic policy? My only hope is that there are enough rational cabinet members and advisers to counteract his comic book mentality.

Starboy

Starboy

Ahhh, I get it. You are now equating "truth" with honesty. Yes there is a need for at least a few scientists to honestly record the facts. But seebs, this isn't any requirement of objective reality, it is the result of the dishonesty of people. It has nothing to do with the "truth" or even the honesty of scientific knowledge. And anyway, the honestly of the observer is part of the experiment. It is a link in the chain of deduction and becomes just as much a part of the exploration as any other link. After all if you got the same results whether or not the experimenter was dishonest, that would be an important thing to know about reality.

Sure, science is done by humans, but there are mechanism in place that over time will weed out the dishonest experiments. It is not perfect but compared to philosophy it works great! There is a mechanism in science that rewards those people that produce hypothesis that can be repeatedly verified. It is called "nothing succeeds like success". Nobody wants to use or reference hypothesis that don't work.

Starboy

Starboy

Hi Amie,

Sorry for the delayed response.

Amie, I see a very real need for people to have guidance on how to live life well. How to be part of a caring and loving family, how to respond to and overcome the many hardships and disappointments that everyone experiences in life. How to be a responsible and productive member of society. These are common needs of people both in this day and in the past. There is no doubt that religion has played a role in meeting this need. All throughout history many cultures have created religions that fit with their particular existence and their understanding of their surrounding and provided for these needs. When religion fits very well, society works a whole lot better. It works better because people do not need laws or regulations to know how to behave, they know how to behave because their ethos is effective in guiding and informing them. It is not perfect, but it is far better to have a society where civility and harmony created by the guidance provided by an ethos then one that is provided by law or edict.

For this to occur the people must 1) be able to relate to and understand the lessons of the ethos easily. 2) the ethos must work. The better it works the more people will rely on it. 3) the ethos must be in harmony with how the people see and understant their world. Who can take an ethos seriously if it uses metaphors that have more in common with fairy tales than everyday existence. 4) the ethos must concern itself first with life on earth. Any other plane of existence should be secondary or not present at all. After all if it can't make things work here on earth why should anyone expect it to be effective on any other plane of existence. 5) the ethos must be flexable, this means no "truth", no rigid chains of authority. 6) the ethos must be benign, again this means no "truth", no chains of authority, no capacity to be subverted to the will of power and control freaks.

Human nature may not make it possible for this to work. I think it is worth a try. As far as I can tell the only religion on the planet that is anywhere near this is Buddhism. Don't get me wrong, I do not know enough about Buddhism to advocate it as the preferred ethos. Perhaps it may be time for a new ethos to appear? One more appropriate to our present circumstances?

Starboy

seebs

No, I'm not.

I'm saying that it matters whether or not the meter *actually* read 107, when we write down 107... And, perhaps even more importantly, it matters whether or not it is *meaningful* to say "the needle pointed to 107".

If it is, then we have "truth"; statements about reality which are not false.

If it isn't, we have no basis for science.

Could you try to articulate what you think the word "truth" refers to? You seem to be able to find all sorts of other concepts, such as "reality" or "honesty", but you don't seem to be willing to use the word "truth" - even though "honesty", for one, is totally meaningless without the idea of truth.

It seems like you're trying very hard to find anything I could be talking about other than truth, but it won't work. Truth is a necessary concept for us to even *start* on any process.

Starboy

seebs, I have seen "truth" used in too many ways. It is too ambiguous to use in a conversation that requires precise concepts. Why don't you tell me what you mean when you use the word "truth"? I would prefer to avoid it and instead use concepts that make the meaning and intent of the communication clear.

As for whether it is *meaningful* to say that the meter pointed to 107, seebs, that is the question isn't it? That is why we are doing science in the first place, to determine if it is *meaningful* or *actual*. Of course, the terms *meaningful* and *actual* are ambigious in this context but this is how I understand your use of it. If you wish to express yourself clearly perhaps you shoud not use words with so much evaluative connotation. Use words that are operational. These are much easier to use, understand and communicate. And in any case if you cannot express your idea in an operational context, what would make you think that it is important in any way?

Starboy

seebs

I mean "truth". There is no other word which replaces it adequately. "Truth" is "conformity to fact or actuality", perhaps.

It is the quality which
"If A implies B, and A is true, B is also true"
has, but
"If A implies B, and B is true, A is also true"
does not have.

The concept of truth itself is a precise one. If you don't like it, tough; it's part of the framework.

No. We're *assuming* that we can say "the meter is pointing to 107", by which we mean "it is false to say that the meter is pointing at anything other than 107".

The simple observation that, without the idea of truth, we have nowhere to go, and no reason to go there. To say "this is useful" is to make a claim of truth. To say "I think this is useful" is also to make a claim of truth. Any assertion is a truth claim; no truth, no assertions, no nothing.

We may not know what the truth is, all the time, but without the idea that it's out there, the whole exercise is pointless.

Starboy

seebs, your claim that "truth" is important when exploring reality can be put to the test. Guess what, your ambiguous concept can be replaced by the words reality and honesty. In the interests of precision and clarity of communication why not use more precise and descriptive terms? Terms that can be described operationaly.

Starboy

Starboy

seebs, I can't help but think that you have yet another meaning for the word "truth" - that which is not part of reality but in which you wish to believe. God is "truth".

Starboy