The good things about using skeptical reasoning

[Heisenberg]

The perception of intertwining of the two may be an error. From Wikipedia:



The article describes the observer effect; its physics are distinct from those of the uncertainty effect. They can be connected through the math of quantum physics, but the information value of that is low since the edifice of math that underlies physics interconnects everything in physics, even if sometimes at quite a remove. cn

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_%28physics%29

You took the post right out of my keyboard.

 

[abandonconflict]

The perception of intertwining of the two may be an error. From Wikipedia:



The article describes the observer effect; its physics are distinct from those of the uncertainty effect. They can be connected through the math of quantum physics, but the information value of that is low since the edifice of math that underlies physics interconnects everything in physics, even if sometimes at quite a remove. cn

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_%28physics%29

translation, objectivity is an obstacle in calculation

 

[cannabineer]

By greater minds, I meant minds with greater cognitive ability, more highly evolved generations, later, with greater perception and sense. In the context where I wrote it, I meant that in the future our perception of reality may not be so subjective.

To answer what I meant with the blue there, absolutely, I consider methodological skepticism to be a philosophy, that is what it is, just like methodological naturalism. Methodological skepticism is by definition subjective. It assumes a subjective reality, it is being misused by objectivists here if experiences are to be discarded and therefore is not the dominant philosophy of science, which is why methodological naturalism is.

I am a dyed-in-ythe-wool subjectivist of the Berkeley/Hume variety. I have trouble seeing the reality I sense around me as compellingly real, since all i have is experience. (Since I am not currently a fan of either Jung or the Hindus, I don't think it likely that I can access the experiences of others, or other iterations of me.) I worry/believe that the inability to see reality as more objective is of a fundamental sort, and cannot be overcome by "throwing processing power at it". Jmo. cn

 

[cannabineer]

translation, objectivity is an obstacle in calculation

You lost me there. cn

 

[abandonconflict]

I am a dyed-in-ythe-wool subjectivist of the Berkeley/Hume variety. I have trouble seeing the reality I sense around me as compellingly real, since all i have is experience. (Since I am not currently a fan of either Jung or the Hindus, I don't think it likely that I can access the experiences of others, or other iterations of me.) I worry/believe that the inability to see reality as more objective is of a fundamental sort, and cannot be overcome by "throwing processing power at it". Jmo. cn

I take the objectivist view out of convenience only. I am therefore willing to doubt it. I find that to make me the more consistent skeptic here in this thread.

 

[cannabineer]

I take the objectivist view out of convenience only.

That neatly sums up my position as well. As a former pro scientist (and as one who still pursues the physical sciences as a hobby) I am deeply impressed at how big a self-consistent and generally useful edifice science (and its even more practical sibling, engineering) has opened to us. At the purely practical level, it's real enough for me.
But I recoil from scientism or any other effort to take a method and elevate it to ideology.

My difficulty in using pure personal experience to assay for truth is my equally deep conviction (and experience, lol) that I can be fooled right down to my roots by the right set of stimuli or internal sensations. It's a question for the animal component of me ... a question of trust. cn

 

[abandonconflict]

translation, objectivity is an obstacle in calculation

The observer is connected too.

 

[abandonconflict]

That neatly sums up my position as well. As a former pro scientist (and as one who still pursues the physical sciences as a hobby) I am deeply impressed at how big a self-consistent and generally useful edifice science (and its even more practical sibling, engineering) has opened to us. At the purely practical level, it's real enough for me.
But I recoil from scientism or any other effort to take a method and elevate it to ideology.

My difficulty in using pure personal experience to assay for truth is my equally deep conviction (and experience, lol) that I can be fooled right down to my roots by the right set of stimuli or internal sensations. It's a question for the animal component of me ... a question of trust. cn

I gotta spread some rep before I can rep you again.

 

[ginjawarrior]

You see here we have someone rebuking a differing opinion. People like you burned free thinkers at the stake for claiming the earth was round.

you can "opine" all you want about "greater minds" yet all the time your trying to "wish" your reality into existence your pretty much worthless to the rest of humanity

 

[abandonconflict]

you can "opine" all you want about "greater minds" yet all the time your trying to "wish" your reality into existence your pretty much worthless to the rest of humanity

OK, cool, thanks.

 

[cannabineer]

The observer is connected too.

That is something I have been trying to put under a spotlight. Both the uncertainty principle and the observer effect have scope and limits with mathematically exact boundaries. I see the terms thrown about with abandon by armchair metaphysicists, hoping to ride the coattails of bigger philosophies (more often than not "multiverse") ... but those armchair dudes are in deep violation of the math. Saying "the observer is connected" needs to be circumscribed into utility, the same way that "this hemp seed could tunnel through this table" is technically possible, but the probabilities become ten to the ten to some awesomely ungainly number ... unlikely. cn

 

[Heisenberg]

How much of a sceptic should one be? Shouldn’t we be equally sceptical of science, or should we apply scepticism selectively?



"Of course, one has to be sceptical of any science if it is being used to fool people. But by definition, science works on principles that are empirically tested, even if they are near-approximations. It has an astonishing rate of explanatory success. Science is a progressive body of knowledge that has been built over several centuries. By progressive, I mean it abandons old and false ideas when new evidence shows up. Unlike religious dictates, which do not change and, in fact, they only keep adding more and more ideas to it so that what you get in the end is a confabulated tale. Science can predict many things, and it can debunk many things. So you can be sceptical of science, but at your own peril. As long as you can back up your claims with evidence, there shouldn’t be a problem." -James Randi

 

[abandonconflict]

That is something I have been trying to put under a spotlight. Both the uncertainty principle and the observer effect have scope and limits with mathematically exact boundaries. I see the terms thrown about with abandon by armchair metaphysicists, hoping to ride the coattails of bigger philosophies (more often than not "multiverse") ... but those armchair dudes are in deep violation of the math. Saying "the observer is connected" needs to be circumscribed into utility, the same way that "this hemp seed could tunnel through this table" is technically possible, but the probabilities become ten to the ten to some awesomely ungainly number ... unlikely. cn

Yup, convenience.

 

[abandonconflict]

How much of a sceptic should one be? Shouldn’t we be equally sceptical of science, or should we apply scepticism selectively?



"Of course, one has to be sceptical of any science if it is being used to fool people. But by definition, science works on principles that are empirically tested, even if they are near-approximations. It has an astonishing rate of explanatory success. Science is a progressive body of knowledge that has been built over several centuries. By progressive, I mean it abandons old and false ideas when new evidence shows up. Unlike religious dictates, which do not change and, in fact, they only keep adding more and more ideas to it so that what you get in the end is a confabulated tale. Science can predict many things, and it can debunk many things. So you can be sceptical of science, but at your own peril. As long as you can back up your claims with evidence, there shouldn’t be a problem." -James Randi

It is a great quote, I hope you don't think I doubt the virtues of science. I simply doubt that methodological naturalism and objectivity will remain central. We are beginning to achieve such accuracy that perfect precision is needed, no approximations. To do this, the observer needs to be part of the equation. I'm not suggesting that the observer be the leading coefficient, but some observers are better than others.

 

[ginjawarrior]

It is a great quote, I hope you don't think I doubt the virtues of science. I simply doubt that methodological naturalism and objectivity will remain central. We are beginning to achieve such accuracy that perfect precision is needed, no approximations. To do this, the observer needs to be part of the equation. I'm not suggesting that the observer be the leading coefficient, but some observers are better than others.

yeah but with all these experiments where perfect precision is necessary isnt the mindframe of the scientist "observant"important? if another scientist were to repeat the same experiment would they not need to have identical mindframe to get same resluts?

under the circumstances your proposing it would be impossible to do these experiments

 

[abandonconflict]

yeah but with all these experiments where perfect precision is necessary isnt the mindframe of the scientist "observant"important? if another scientist were to repeat the same experiment would they not need to have identical mindframe to get same resluts?

under the circumstances your proposing it would be impossible to do these experiments

Would it be cliche if I said I have faith in the leading minds of science to find a way?

 

[eye exaggerate]

How much of a sceptic should one be? Shouldn’t we be equally sceptical of science, or should we apply scepticism selectively?



"Of course, one has to be sceptical of any science if it is being used to fool people. But by definition, science works on principles that are empirically tested, even if they are near-approximations. It has an astonishing rate of explanatory success. Science is a progressive body of knowledge that has been built over several centuries. By progressive, I mean it abandons old and false ideas when new evidence shows up. Unlike religious dictates, which do not change and, in fact, they only keep adding more and more ideas to it so that what you get in the end is a confabulated tale. Science can predict many things, and it can debunk many things. So you can be sceptical of science, but at your own peril. As long as you can back up your claims with evidence, there shouldn’t be a problem." -James Randi

...I removed this earlier. I'll paste it not for your namesake's involvement!

"Inspired by the archetype of the magician, Pauli continued to revise his scientific world view and towards the end of his life abandoned a Neoplatonic view of science in favour of the ‘white magic’ of the Hermetic alchemical world view. Through his letters Pauli paved the way for a new world view, yet his progress was hindered by his adherence to the law of conservation of energy which implies the homogeneity of time. On the other hand, he was struck by the nature of kairos, that qualitative aspect of time in which events occur spontaneously. While homogeneous time is purely quantitative, kairos adds in a qualitative aspect."

 

[ginjawarrior]

Would it be cliche if I said I have faith in the leading minds of science to find a way?

there isnt a problem in their precision experiments thats needs them to find a way from differing mindsets

the science works whether they're there in the lab of if their down the pub having a beer while the experiments go on

your idea of observer is meaningless

 

[abandonconflict]

there isnt a problem in their precision experiments thats needs them to find a way from differing mindsets

the science works whether they're there in the lab of if their down the pub having a beer while the experiments go on

your idea of observer is meaningless

Your hostility is meaningless.

 

[ginjawarrior]

...I removed this earlier. I'll paste it not for your namesake's involvement!

"Inspired by the archetype of the magician, Pauli continued to revise his scientific world view and towards the end of his life abandoned a Neoplatonic view of science in favour of the ‘white magic’ of the Hermetic alchemical world view. Through his letters Pauli paved the way for a new world view, yet his progress was hindered by his adherence to the law of conservation of energy which implies the homogeneity of time. On the other hand, he was struck by the nature of kairos, that qualitative aspect of time in which events occur spontaneously. While homogeneous time is purely quantitative, kairos adds in a qualitative aspect."

"Not only is it not right, it's not even wrong!"