The good things about using skeptical reasoning

ginjawarrior

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
proper spelling and use of apostrophes apparently don't win arguments either
Click to expand...
but apparently ignoring the point of the argument seems to hold some points in your "objectivism is assumed" world

anyway ignoring the spelling mistakes or apostrphes nightmares

what about the precision experiments that work again and again anywhere around the world where the mindset of the "observer" doesnt mean shit to the results of the experiments?
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
ginjawarrior said:
but apparently ignoring the point of the argument seems to hold some points in your "objectivism is assumed" world

anyway ignoring the spelling mistakes or apostrphes nightmares

what about the precision experiments that work again and again anywhere around the world where the mindset of the "observer" doesnt mean shit to the results of the experiments?
Click to expand...
What about the ones that do?
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
I'm just going to clue you in Ginja, your approach is very absolute and ignores complexity. You are seeking to summarily "prove me wrong" and I am seeking to be philosophically proven wrong. The original post contains praise of skepticism and I criticized a single aspect, while agreeing with the rest. You seem to have taken that as a summary criticism of all skepticism and have proceeded to charge forth to simply see me be wrong, with out actually understanding my argument.

It is my opinion that objectivity is assumed by those who adhere to methodological naturalism (basic premise). Methodological skepticism is a very subjective philosophy (this is a fact and it is my supporting premise). Therefore a consistent person cannot adhere to both. (conclusion)

This is my overall argument. It is a philosophical one.

Now to support this stance, I have gone further, to show that two theoretical principles in a hard science (which currently adheres to the philosophy of methodological naturalism), physics, seem to suggest some measure of subjectivity. Subjectivity contradicts objectivity (albeit by an extremely minute measure in the examples). Therefore I am skeptical of the dominance and providence of the philosophy which guides hard science and adhere to it only out of convenience.

To come back by attacking my opinion, that objectivity is assumed, you would either agree, or disagree. If you disagree, then you are saying you believe that Methodological Naturalism contends that reality is subjective.

A better approach, if you wish to dispel my entire argument summarily, would be to abandon the approach you have taken and attack instead, my contention that these two scientific principals suggest any measure of subjectivity. Even so, you would only prevail philosophically, since as I said, I already adhere to the dominant philosophy of science (yes, only out of convenience). In fact, I would prevail since I am seeking to be proven incorrect.
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
ginjawarrior said:
which ones are those then?

right now greater minds than myself are able to measure quantum fluctuations within signals and thats repeatable aroudn the world

objectivity is the key that unlocks all these wonders
Click to expand...
This is a better approach. Now if you could expound upon this, with aim toward the uncertainty principal and the observer effect, and how I have interpreted them (in your view incorrectly), I could merrily be rewarded for my skepticism. I have hitherto been more likely to adhere to the Cartesian philosophy of methodological skepticism than to methodological naturalism.
 
mindphuk

mindphuk

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
The bolded statement is very closed minded. This is as much a philosophical position as anything else and indeed all of the advancements of science you describe are a result of a philosophical position called methodological naturalism. I do not for a second dispute that this has been the only path from archaic right brain superstition into modernity. However, can you name a single advancement that did not have origins in the imagination of the thinker? Could Darwin have made a discovery about evolution had he no imagination, no willingness to think outside the box? It was left brained logic and empirical testing that allowed him to form a theory, but it began as intuition and imagination.

That being said, we still have our right brains. Your argument hinges on objectivism, the idea that reality exists whether we observe it or not. I am philosophically contending otherwise. We simply haven't learned to use our brains, it is too early in the scheme, we aren't there yet.
Click to expand...
It's not any more closed minded than telling you that if you deny evolution or atomic theory or germ theory, etc. aren't true, then it's a conversation stopper. You continue to want to paint me as an objectivist. I am not and my personal philosophy is empiricism. I read quite a bit of Rand and disagree with much of her philosophy but none of that matters. What matters is that you are appear to not understand my position. I'm not sure what more I can do to explain it but the ultimate truth can never be known. Science relies on assumptions, such as that I am not a brain in a vat. The universe makes sense, is orderly and follows basic rules that can be determined My senses are not relied upon, something that is the antithesis of Objectivism. We design and build instruments that unravel the rules. These instruments can demonstrate that our brains are unreliable. Our connection to the outside our minds is indirect and goes through filters and applied to models that are sometimes wrong. Measurement by instruments is what gives us the clearest picture. You appear to believe that are brains can learn about things by mere contemplation and your examples of intuition by scientists actually helps my position more than yours. Their intuition was based on a growing base of knowledge that uses another objective tool, mathematics and testing.

Einstein might not have come up with his ideas on light if not for Maxwell and the Michelson-Morley experiments. Darwin had read the new ideas presenting in the new of geology and Charles Lyell's book introducing the concept of deep time. He was a young man when the idea had not long been proposed that fossils were actually early, extinct life forms. Darwin was a trained botanist, well-versed in taxonomy. The oldest known fossils from the Cambrian were dated (measured) to 540 mya. The Beagle voyage gave him time to explore the geology and collect specimens including fossils of extinct animals like a gigantic ground sloth. He saw live species like the two closely related but distinct species of rheas that had their particular characteristics for their geographical areas but had one area of overlap. This is problematic for the prevailing view at the time that all species were created in a fixed form. The point is, intuition and creativity was came about because of data and facts "on the ground." His imagination was led in a direction because he had an open mind. He was willing to question the current models.

We still do this today. We KNOW general relativity and the standard model of particle physics, two of the most successful models of what we think is reality, ARE WRONG. They cannot be right because they have known flaws. However, Einstein is a better refinement of Newton. Einstein is not going to be too far off. I am aware of what we don't still know. However, I will never be able to find the answers by just thinking about them. As I pointed out, in all of our 100,000 year history, we have never learned something that way. I challenge you to name one thing we have discovered by true by mere thought alone. Philosophical discussion can be interesting but there is always a counter argument, except when there is empirical data to support the thought, and that's no longer called philosophy, that's called science.
 
mindphuk

mindphuk

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
It is my opinion that objectivity is assumed by those who adhere to methodological naturalism (basic premise). Methodological skepticism is a very subjective philosophy (this is a fact and it is my supporting premise). Therefore a consistent person cannot adhere to both. (conclusion)
Click to expand...
I have a few pages to catch up on and read but I just saw this after I posted and need to address it.

Methodological skepticism or methodological naturalism is not a philosophy it is a method. It is called that because it is how we distinguish it from philosophical naturalism. Science cannot hold a philosophy but is necessarily naturalistic as a method because we can't test magic. You are forcing a philosophical debate where there isn't one and I think that's where you aren't understanding me or creating that conversation stopper that I mentioned. This has nothing to do with being open or close minded which is why that accusation is meaningless from where I sit. Disagreement at this point means we are talking around each other because I can't understand an argument that goes like this one has.
I say, "what color is tomorrow's temperature?"
You answer, "that doesn't make sense to me."
I reply, "you're being closed minded."
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
mindphuk said:
It's not any more closed minded than telling you that if you deny evolution or atomic theory or germ theory, etc. aren't true, then it's a conversation stopper. You continue to want to paint me as an objectivist. I am not and my personal philosophy is empiricism. I read quite a bit of Rand and disagree with much of her philosophy but none of that matters. What matters is that you are appear to not understand my position. I'm not sure what more I can do to explain it but the ultimate truth can never be known. Science relies on assumptions, such as that I am not a brain in a vat. The universe makes sense, is orderly and follows basic rules that can be determined My senses are not relied upon, something that is the antithesis of Objectivism. We design and build instruments that unravel the rules. These instruments can demonstrate that our brains are unreliable. Our connection to the outside our minds is indirect and goes through filters and applied to models that are sometimes wrong. Measurement by instruments is what gives us the clearest picture. You appear to believe that are brains can learn about things by mere contemplation and your examples of intuition by scientists actually helps my position more than yours. Their intuition was based on a growing base of knowledge that uses another objective tool, mathematics and testing.

Einstein might not have come up with his ideas on light if not for Maxwell and the Michelson-Morley experiments. Darwin had read the new ideas presenting in the new of geology and Charles Lyell's book introducing the concept of deep time. He was a young man when the idea had not long been proposed that fossils were actually early, extinct life forms. Darwin was a trained botanist, well-versed in taxonomy. The oldest known fossils from the Cambrian were dated (measured) to 540 mya. The Beagle voyage gave him time to explore the geology and collect specimens including fossils of extinct animals like a gigantic ground sloth. He saw live species like the two closely related but distinct species of rheas that had their particular characteristics for their geographical areas but had one area of overlap. This is problematic for the prevailing view at the time that all species were created in a fixed form. The point is, intuition and creativity was came about because of data and facts "on the ground." His imagination was led in a direction because he had an open mind. He was willing to question the current models.

We still do this today. We KNOW general relativity and the standard model of particle physics, two of the most successful models of what we think is reality, ARE WRONG. They cannot be right because they have known flaws. However, Einstein is a better refinement of Newton. Einstein is not going to be too far off. I am aware of what we don't still know. However, I will never be able to find the answers by just thinking about them. As I pointed out, in all of our 100,000 year history, we have never learned something that way. I challenge you to name one thing we have discovered by true by mere thought alone. Philosophical discussion can be interesting but there is always a counter argument, except when there is empirical data to support the thought, and that's no longer called philosophy, that's called science.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, I did ascribe Objectivist views to you because of the way that I perceived your arguments. I wasn't referring to Rand's Objectivism but the views originating from Frege and his rebukes of Kant. It seemed to me that you had taken the philosophical realism of Frege known as Objectivism, not the sociopolitical parallel authored by Rand. Although I do believe she also premised her views from his, I wasn't ascribing her views to you.
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
mindphuk said:
I have a few pages to catch up on and read but I just saw this after I posted and need to address it.

Methodological skepticism or methodological naturalism is not a philosophy it is a method. It is called that because it is how we distinguish it from philosophical naturalism. Science cannot hold a philosophy but is necessarily naturalistic as a method because we can't test magic. You are forcing a philosophical debate where there isn't one and I think that's where you aren't understanding me or creating that conversation stopper that I mentioned. This has nothing to do with being open or close minded which is why that accusation is meaningless from where I sit. Disagreement at this point means we are talking around each other because I can't understand an argument that goes like this one has.
I say, "what color is tomorrow's temperature?"
You answer, "that doesn't make sense to me."
I reply, "you're being closed minded."
Click to expand...
This is simply incorrect. Furthermore, these are two philosophical doctrines with contradictory assumptions driving the approach (or as you say, method).

*add by edit* Furthermore, Methodological Naturalism has been phenomenally successful. I do not feel that it will always be the dominant philosophy of the scientific method, as greater precision will be required for advancements.
 
mindphuk

mindphuk

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
This is simply incorrect. Furthermore, these are two philosophical doctrines with contradictory assumptions driving the approach (or as you say, method).
Click to expand...
Please describe the philosophy behind methodological naturalism and how it is distinguished from philosophical naturalism. What are these contradicting assumptions? Please explain how any methodology is a philosophy. Is my methodological DVD organization demonstrating underlying philosophy of movies? Does my methodological French cooking denote my philosophical take on the superiority of French cuisine? Why do we use methodological anything if we are actually describing a philosophy and not a methodology? One of us is very confused about the terminology. When that occurs, it becomes apparent we are using different definitions for the same word and in that case it's not a philosophical debate but a dictionary debate, and those are boring often futile. If terms cannot be agreed upon, we are literally talking around each other.
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
mindphuk said:
Please describe the philosophy behind methodological naturalism and how it is distinguished from philosophical naturalism. What are these contradicting assumptions? Please explain how any methodology is a philosophy. Is my methodological DVD organization demonstrating underlying philosophy of movies? Does my methodological French cooking denote my philosophical take on the superiority of French cuisine? Why do we use methodological anything if we are actually describing a philosophy and not a methodology? One of us is very confused about the terminology. When that occurs, it becomes apparent we are using different definitions for the same word and in that case it's not a philosophical debate but a dictionary debate, and those are boring often futile. If terms cannot be agreed upon, we are literally talking around each other.
Click to expand...
Semantics first!

A system of doctrine is a philosophy.

The rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct is philosophy.
 
mindphuk

mindphuk

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
Fair enough, I did ascribe Objectivist views to you because of the way that I perceived your arguments. I wasn't referring to Rand's Objectivism but the views originating from Frege and his rebukes of Kant. It seemed to me that you had taken the philosophical realism of Frege known as Objectivism, not the sociopolitical parallel authored by Rand. Although I do believe she also premised her views from his, I wasn't ascribing her views to you.
Click to expand...
Great. See, we were talking about different things. The philosophy of realism is the other name of the Frege variety.
See this is progress. :)
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
mindphuk said:
Great. See, we were talking about different things. The philosophy of realism is the other name of the Frege variety.
See this is progress. :)
Click to expand...
Did you think I was going to try to convince you of the existence of imaginary friends and super powerful spirits?
 
mindphuk

mindphuk

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
Posting this video is rather revealing about what you think of this debate. You seem convinced that you adhere to a way of thinking that is the only possible path to knowledge and that is simply incorrect. I think that adherence to anything is limiting. When I contend that experience is the only reality, I am not saying that I know because God told me, I am saying that reality is subjective. I am cognizant of the cold hard fact that humans are limited, so please, don't iterate it for me, I'm fully capable of grasping the concept you are conveying by reading it.

That being said, what I have in mind when I say reality is subjective, is the observer effect and the Heisenberg principal of uncertainty. I'm not contending that the advancements of methodological naturalism were any less valuable than they were. I'm not at all saying that anything supernatural is real either.
Click to expand...
Uncertainty requires that nature cannot be accurately predicted but it is not subjective. The probabilities are still objectively measurable.
The observer effect means that any method we use to detect the state of a particle interacts with and can alter the conditions. This has to do with the actual process of how we measure things. A fact of the quantum world, not something I would consider subjective. At least using the definition, "subject's personal perspective, feelings, beliefs, desires or discovery, as opposed to those made from an independent, objective, point of view."
 
mindphuk

mindphuk

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
Did you think I was going to try to convince you of the existence of imaginary friends and super powerful spirits?
Click to expand...
Not sure why you are asking that. I don't think I implied I thought this was a debate about the supernatural. I have merely been trying to explain myself and understand your position. A point of mutual agreement is a good thing. Don't ruin it by creating a strawman.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top