Hugo Holbling

And i am saying, in similar fashion, that this is an unjustified and unnecessary metaphysical step.

Why wouldn't we expect that? It seems rather more likely that the converse should be anticipated; viz. that any theory partly or entirely a function of the theoriser would be useful.

Well, i'm trying to be clear. Let me know if i'm slipping.

Did i say there wasn't?

That's because you judge the situation and circumstances from your own point-of-view. In fact the concepts of health and well-being were and still are defined differently in other time periods and cultures. Those who, for example, reject invasive surgical procedures on principle and prefer other methods or no health at all (in the sense that we define it) are hardly "wrong" in so doing. Medicine, like anything else, is adapted to the society it serves, and not the other way around. I hope you see the subtlety of this point.

Perhaps Dr Rick may have something to say about this? I'll be ready to withdraw this objection if he knocks it down.

I see. Do you have answers, then, to the many critiques of probabilism? You could start with Popper and his proof (based on Frege and Church) that the probability of any hypothesis, given the evidence for it, is always zero. I realize this is counter-intuitive, but the only attempt i know of to get around it is Tarski's. You can find the discussion in appendix seven of his The Logic Of Scientific Discovery.

I would probably have made the same tu quoque move myself.

The easy response is to say that i haven't used an "objective" method and hence your objection is moot. I don't believe in the existence of flawless demarcation criteria, so i couldn't hope to. Moreover, in the present context wherein i'm debating on II suggesting that creationism may have redeeming features would be very much counter-productive. I don't have to be sure that my assessments are based on reality because i am not moved to have faith in its existence nor to allow that the same is a methodological requirement.

If you think such answers are evasive then it merely shows you have not understood the problem.

Sojourner553

Is it not just as “metaphysical” for you to assume there is no reality apart from your perception of reality.



There are two planes of discussing health and well-being. Physical and mental (psychological). Physical health may be objectively measured (number of deaths, patients reporting illness, etc – and was clearly my meaning when I stated I was not counting mental hallucinogenic medicines to “make me think” I felt better in seeing the witchdoctor.

Counting deaths of course is the most objective of all. I choose that one! Or is death not real either?






My predictive models regarding your responses are improving, because I guessed you would say something like this… especially the part being purposely vague.

Surely you must predict my reply well:

I find your responses very evasive! Seems to me you freely intermingle reality with your perception of it. You were on easier ground when claiming the statements by everyone else were metaphysical.

But -- most important-- I do not see you applying the same standards to your one concrete statement—ie Creationism is wrong and should not be taught.

Does that not make your own views ... metaphysical?

Hugo Holbling

Well, that question is moot because i'm not claiming this. Please try not to make these non sequiturs: i said that any evidence in itself doesn't warrant infering the truth of a theory from its apparent usefulness in terms of explanatory or predictive power. This difficult, as you rightly point out, doesn't justify either my assuming that reality is constructed by our discourse, but i haven't made that claim.

Clearly you missed my point, then. Health and well-being are measured qualitatively by the individual patient in myriad ways, many of them "irrational". Some people choose death over certain medical procedures - you are not justified in then concluding that those people were lunatics because medicine was subservient to their beliefs or way-of-life, not that you would. Physical health is then only measured objectively if you assume that the criteria we adopt are accepted by all, but they aren't - as the counter-example shows.

Heh. Nice try. It isn't an objective measure because some people value their belief higher than their lives and hence the loss of the latter is not as important as the potential loss or contravention of the former. You may decry this approach but you cannot subsume it into your "objective" understanding.

In that case, i'm glad i didn't disappoint.

I don't feel the ground shifting quite as you imagine it. I notice, for example, that you passed over the difficulties with probabilism in silence. Moreover, i am not the one making objective or metaphysical claims, in spite of your insistence that i am, so i am quite free to frustrate your attempts to put me in a box.

That statement was made in passing and is hardly my own - take a look at the recent thread in Evol/Cre, for example, wherein i argued that creationism should be taught in schools. Neither would i claim that it is "wrong" for reasons we have already discussed. In the context of this discussion, however, i am quite willing to agree that it's bunkum in order to pose the question of demarcation and how we are to describe methodology in a way that excludes it but leaves other areas intact. I don't think the thing can be done, but i may employ whatever tactics i like in so showing. You may call me evasive again if you like.

Bede

Some random thoughts and a question:

What I'm finding terribly interesting about Sojourner's viewpoints is that she combines a left wing relativist political stance with a right wing objectivist metaphysical one (yes, right wing metaphysics is possible!). But who says we have to be consistent ?

The enlightment fallacy that if you just explained things properly we would all agree, seems to me to be at the heart of the disagreement between Hugo and Sojourner. For Sojourner to explain something she needs some axioms (such as people would rather be alive than dead) which Hugo keeps rejecting. Are there no properly basic beliefs or is it up to metaphysics to provide them? After all, I have God who solves all these problems (and a whole lot of others) and explains exactly why we have a law abiding objective reality.

As I understand it, Hugo is claiming that although there might be this objective reality, neither science, nor anything else, has provided the answer as to whether there actually is one. If this is his position I shall go away and try to formulate an attack on it. If it is not, then I would like to know what it is.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Hugo Holbling

This discussion - since moving on from Galileo - represents a simplification of the many debates on scientific realism, but from my point-of-view this is due to the simplistic understanding of it and the pared-down version on show. I'll be glad to offer links and references to more detailed information if anyone is interested, but for the time being i'll continue to work within the context of our debate.

I do not make the claim that you state, Bede. Your faith, for example, provides an answer to the problem; satisfactory to some but not to others. The are plenty of answers around, including the naive realism we've seen here, but the question is whether any of them are convincing in the objective way that Sojourner wants to frame the discussion. Clearly i'm a fool, but i wouldn't make the non sequitur that no answer so far (that i know of) in this fashion means no objective reality exists (although i do wonder if this problem makes any sense), but i'll make some kind of claim in order to give you something to attack. As i've explained to you before, i'm not in the habit of so doing because i don't propose to infect the world with my ideas and i don't take them seriously enough to become messianic with regard to them. Here you go, in any case:

I am pretty much in agreement with bd-from-kg's post in this thread of old, in which he stated:

As he subsequently noted, this is very much within the mainstream of the philosophy of science. In addition to his remarks, i should say that i am happy to use metaphysical presuppositions (such as assuming the validity of induction) but i am wholly opposed to ascribing them any ontological power, as per certain aspects of the much-maligned "postmodern" critique.

How's that?

NOGO

I accept this as a summary of what science is.

All that scientific theories have in common with reality is their power of generating approximately correct predictions under limited sets of circumstances.

I insist on the word "approximately" and "limited range of circumstances".

I also seem to agree with you on another essential point.
Science is man-made.
"Created by man" as opposed to "discovered by man" which I believe is Bede's position.

Sojourner553

LOL. To analyze a person’s statements, I first try and look for consistency within THEIR framework of choice—as a FIRST STEP! That does not mean I necessarily accept their framework as my own.


Yes. Hugo seems to reject all sensory evidence as well.



Hugo, you have not convinced me you follow your own rules: Have you not proclaimed Creationism an invalid scientific theory?

Seems to me --Within the philosophical framework you have constructed for us, you could reasonably argue that a Creationist (or alternatively an Evolutionist) could not claim their theory is based on any external reality.

But! Hugo you have done “more” than this because you have stated it is not possible for Creationism to be a valid system.

**This violates the principle that we can know ANYTHING about external reality. (ie, Hugo you are telling us what external reality is NOT about—ie Creationism– a clear violation.)

** The same applies to making probabilities statements. Hugo you have made it clear you see ZERO probability for Creationism.

Judging Creationism on aesthetic criteria ("simplicity, elegance, and parsimony"), it seems to me this is purely subjective: Afterall, it seems to me one could easily argue that a scientific belief that a God created the earth in six days-- is simple, elegant, AND parsimonious!

Afterall, is not evolution more complex, wasteful (ie not parsimonious, etc) than Creationism?

Seems to me either you need to admit Creationism “may” be a valid scientific theory per your philosophical system. (Likewise, the same applies to ALL other theories – whether brilliant or whacky…)

Else there must be either be some “exceptions” (which you need to explain within the framework of your philosophical system) or else there must be some “flaw(s)” with your philosophical system. (Agreed, the latter only applies if you can’t explain the exceptions).

Sorry if it is my turn that I now disagree with you. Just a little tit for tat we call it in the states. Nothing personal of course. Always good friends.



PS: Bede, please don’t call me a Creationist sympathizer from this…. What is that right wing metaphysical… I get lost past that… (LOL)

Sojourner

Hugo Holbling

Thanks for your input, NOGO. I would probably insert after "reality" the phrase "if we suppose it exists".

No. Since you insist on following this tu quoque approach, i have to assume you're either not reading through my comments at all or otherwise taking an uncharitable reading of everything i post.

Once more from the top: i consider it very difficult, if not impossible, to demarcate in a meaningful way between science and non-science, such that the methodological standards used take account of the history of science to date. Creationism is a theory considered nonsense by the majority of posters on these fora and hence any demarcation criteria should exclude it. I am willing to agree that creationism is the embodiment of lunacy for the purpose of showing my doubts concerning the demarcation problem (that is, i think it is a pseudo-problem) and because if i were to suggest otherwise i could expect the thread to move off-topic and into the Evol/Cre forum. These points aside, i have also made it quite clear that since i do not believe in the existence of flawless grounds from which to decide on these things, i cannot at any time be taken to be objectively dismissing creationism or proclaiming it invalid. However, as a supposed relativist, what i can do is dismiss it based on personal opinion or as a move in debate, as i have done. Hence, all your objections are moot.

I am at a loss as to why you continue along the lines of your previous post when i can scarcely make this any clearer.

Agreed. In spite of what you may think, i'm not being deliberately evasive here. There's an important point you aren't grasping; viz. that i do not agree with your presuppositions or your understanding of mine.

Sojourner553

Hugo,

My point was this: In following the “only” objective guidelines you provide on how to judge a scientific theory… Creationism clearly passes.

When I ask you to explain why you make an “exception” of Creationism, you admit you “cannot at any time be taken to be OBJECTIVELY dismissing creationism or proclaiming it invalid”.

Yet you still allow yourself to dismiss Creationism as nonsense based on a new set of criteria:

· the majority of posters consider Creationism nonsense.

-- seems to me you would have a hard time proving this is “reality”! )I can elaborate – ie I think I can get almost as creative as you on such soft topics...

and if that isn’t enough:

· as a “supposed relativist, you can dismiss {anything you want} based on personal opinion”


I’m afraid I don't see you following your own rules, except to leave them so full of loopholes and exit points -- nothing is relevant except to your own “choosing” at a whim. As you wrote to Bede, truth is probably "not out there" to be found.

So why post?

I suspect you get some mischievous pleasure out of telling people there is probably no truth out there. Yet you don’t like to hold the same rules to your own theories. (How "certain" are you that Creationism is really false then? ie how do you weigh your OBJECTIVE evaluations with your SUBJECTIVE ones?)

You wrote me something a while back I found most revealing in this regard :


Well if you can't justify it OBJECTIVELY, you can always fall back on SUBJECTIVE reasons, I see.

why not just make it up without any of the "trappings" of any philosophy. Wastes a lot less time and is far more direct.




Well…ditto.

Hugo Holbling

Well, i have enjoyed debating with you, but i'm not going to bang my head against this particular brick wall any longer. I don't accept your presupposition that everyone must have a system to push or that a Feyerabendian would propose rules.

Thanks for speculating on my motivations. Clearly you aren't reading my posts, since in the one above this i said my comments couldn't be objective; perhaps you are not familiar with rhetoric (in the classical sense) and the myriad moves that may be made in debate to prove a point from an opponent's perspective? I don't know why you continue to push for a discussion of creationism when you have singularly failed to criticise my long post in answer to Bede or to stand up to any of the critiques of your naive realism and probabilism.

If you think i've been wasting your time, i apologise. That said, i wonder why you bothered responsing?