Scientific Method Mega Thread

[jedidia]

As for alternative values of G, it is actually different on Mt.Everest and near the Dead Sea

Of course it is, but I can tell you pretty exactly what the gravity on mount everest without even going there and measuring it. According to Jel, we wouldn't even know IF we do...

 

[JEL]

@Hielor;

If the knowledge you have about existence is LESS than total, do you not then have to agree that there IS a possibility for the existence of something you have NOT thought of?

I never said you chose your beliefs at will.
What you believe may be forced upon you.



@jedidia;

You have to start at the beginning.

What do you know with certainty? That you are aware of your thoughts.

Since you are aware of your thoughts, you can conclude that you exist.

Now we have "Cogito ergo sum".

Good... you exist... next step.

What do you know about your thoughts with certainty? Only that they exist and that you are aware of them. Their nature, and the nature of their content, however, remains unknown.

Thus certainty ends here. Beyond this point is speculation.

It therefore is impossible to claim that the content of your thoughts represent an indisputable truth that exist beyond you and independent of you. The possibility is there, but it's only a possibility, not a certainty.

And without certainty you cannot logically rule anything in or out.

So all talk about the content of your thoughts (gravity, math, sunshine, etc) becomes secondary and therefore really irrelevant to the main issue, namely; "what can be determined with certainty?"

The content of your thoughts MIGHT be an illusion. A dream maybe.

So it's too early to move on to claiming the existence of a true objective world around you, based on the mere content of your thoughts.

You may BELIEVE in such a world, but you can't know with absolute certainty if your belief is true.
Thus you HAVE to accept that your belief MAY be wrong. Otherwise you are nolonger dealing with the truth, or science, but simply with fiction.

Don't blame me if you don't like the truth. I didn't invent the world

And I'm not dodging your questions, it's just that your questions don't make any sense because they are premature.

 

[Fizyk]

Thus certainty ends here. Beyond this point is speculation.

Strictly speaking, yes. But for all practical purposes, no. The probability that everything is totally different is simply too low for it to be seriously considered.

 

[Hielor]

If the knowledge you have about existence is LESS than total, do you not then have to agree that there IS a possibility for the existence of something you have NOT thought of?

Sure, but we have a pretty good understanding of gravity, namely that it's 9.8m/s^s at sea level and that hasn't changed since we started measuring.

I never said you chose your beliefs at will.
What you believe may be forced upon you.

Reality does have a way of forcing beliefs upon you, yes.

 

[JEL]

The probability that everything is totally different is simply too low for it to be seriously considered.

You can't calculate a probability without info.

we have a pretty good understanding of gravity

Within the realms of the world that MAY be an illusion, yes


I'm sorry for being a pain in the behind on you guys, but this is an old old subject that humans have fought with for millenia. If you want to learn more about it, or dive deeper into it, there's plenty of reading material on the web
All the arguments that both you and I have presented in this thread have already been thoroughly discussed before.

 

[jedidia]

You may BELIEVE in such a world, but you can't know with absolute certainty if your belief is true

Which brings us back to what I already said two times before: I dont need that certainty. As long as the world reliably pretends to be what it is, I can work with it.

And I'm not dodging your questions, it's just that your questions don't make any sense because they are premature.

It is premature to ask what you actually believe about reality on another level than the dialectical? It is premature to ask you how you define objectivity? No. It is not. These are questions essential to the discussion. What you have been doing so far is discuss dialectics without any practical meaning or aplication. Very well, that's what philosophy is all about. What would interest me is what consequences these believs have in your life. If they have none, then your believs would have absolutely no implicatins whatsoever, except to give you the preposterous feeling that reality will step aside for you. And that might not end well...

 

[JEL]

Which brings us back to what I already said two times before: I dont need that certainty. As long as the world reliably pretends to be what it is, I can work with it.

As long as you are not certain about something, you should refrain from judging/restricting other people's freedom and liberties.

Please read up on [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei"]Galileo Galilei[/ame], before you repeat the inquisition's banning of beliefs they didn't like:

In 1633, Galileo was convicted of "grave suspicion of heresy" based on the book, which was then placed on the Index of Forbidden Books, from which it was not removed until 1835 (after the theories it discussed had been permitted in print in 1822.)
In an action that was not announced at the time, the publication of anything else he had written or ever might write was also banned.

The book: "Dialog Concerning the Two Chief World Systems"

Freedom and liberty is NOT up for compromise!
They are a constitutionally defended right! (and that's in the world YOU believe in )

It is premature to ask what you actually believe about reality on another level than the dialectical?

Sorry, then I must have misunderstood your question initially. I apologize for that.
I believe "cogito ergo sum".

It is premature to ask you how you define objectivity?

Princeton university defines it like this:

judgment based on observable phenomena and uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices

I like that definition... objectivity is the opposite of subjectivity (IE anything not related to my mind) although it obviously means no objectivity can be known, since we can't know anything that has not in some way been influenced by our own mind. After all, our mind HAS to do the observation and thoughtful evaluation of whatever MAY be truly objective in nature, and thus this definition limits us from knowing it objectively SHOULD it exist (once again we're limited to "cogito ergo sum")

There's nothing wrong with the definition. The problem is that we can't know anything without a mind to do the 'knowing' with. Thus our mind is, at the very least, ALWAYS a factor in the equation. The definition of objectivity does NOT allow such a subjective factor to be included.

What you have been doing so far is discuss dialectics without any practical meaning or aplication.

I went into this debate ONLY to defend practical liberty and freedom from what I think is a dangerous populist view (the view that science can support absolutist ideals). Not to end up in a deeper philosophical talk.

 

[jedidia]

I believe "cogito ergo sum".

That *is* dialectics. What about the elevator?

judgement based on observable phenomena...

This part you deny, since you claim that nothing can be truly observed.

...uninfluenced by personal emotion or prejudices

And this states nothing else than that the more you can take emotion and prejudice out of the equation, the closer you get to objectivity. Although, grantet, you can never get *quite* there. However, if the sole problem to get closer to objectivity is to eliminate emotion and prejudice, then increasing the volume of observations totally makes them more objective. Which you denied too.

This is pretty much how I define objectivity, and I was under the impression that you defined it differently, because you deny both basic premises (especially the first one, and resulting from that the second). So now I'm even more confused... from my subjective observation it seems that you're not sticking to your definition, but I'd need to increase the volume of observations to get my personal bias out.

Freedom and liberty is NOT up for compromise!
They are a constitutionally defended right! (and that's in the world YOU believe in )

Freedom and Liberty were always up for compromise, as much as I may distaste that. Reality, as far as we can tell, wasn't.

Certainly, our perception of reality was, and is. Again, I'm not denying that. But it seems rather drastic, and extremely silly, to deny any reality at all because you feel threatend in the execution of your free will because gravity doesn't allow you to fly.

That was a bit cynical, I know. I'm not neccessarily suggesting that that's what you believe, that's just what it looks like to me.

As long as you are not certain about something, you should refrain from judging/restricting other people's freedom and liberties.

You're saying that I'm not allowed to restrict another mans freedom to kill somebody else because I can't be certain that a) he really did, and b) that the other is really dead. I just don't get how that would be better than a bad dictatorship (I'm not saying it's worse, either. People can't live either way). And both reek of horrible amounts of doublethink.

I went into this debate ONLY to defend practical liberty and freedom from what I think is a dangerous populist view

If that's the only thing you meant to say, then I can only repeat: You'll get better results if you aproach the problem politically. If you deny any concept of reality to defend your personal freedom, you sound like a lunatic with illusions of grandure (I'm not saying you are. I say this is my subjective impression from what you write, and I don't believe it's true, either. I just think we're somewhere having a knot in the communication, and trying to clear that up was what I was trying to do these last few posts).

 

[JEL]

@jedidia; "Cogito ergo sum" was said by René Descartes. I have a feeling you aren't going to call that guy a lunatic.

We've already been through all the points you raise in your last post, and there's no point in my repeating myself over and over. So I'll simply conclude that we don't agree, and leave it at that.

Thanks for the talk though

 

[Urwumpe]

JEL: Nobody here except you dares to reduce Descartes to just this sentence and then reinterpret it in a new way to fit his concepts. The cogito ergo sum is just the climax of Descartes magnum opus, but he wrote a lot more about it and how he meant it.


Also, about the lack of data: We have already trillions of scientific measurements. There are still measurements, that contradict the old models when you have better accuracy of the sensors, but the coarse data still suits the old models. It happens only once in a lifetime, that an scientific explanation for observed data is completely wrong... usually it happens in biology, astrophysics or genetics, because of the inability to watch the processes in real-time from inside and analyze them - at least for now.

 

[jedidia]

@jedidia; "Cogito ergo sum" was said by René Descartes. I have a feeling you aren't going to call that guy a lunatic.

I know that it's from Descartes alright, but to wheather or not he was a lunatic I have only my subjective biased impression that he wasn't, so who knows...

Anyways, As far as I understood Descartes he meant to say that he can only proof that he exists because he thinks, i.e. because he can observe himself thinking, and since he can observe someone thinking, someone has to be there doing it. thinking was a way for him to get proof, in the end, and not to deny all proof, unless I grieviously mistook him somewhere.

We've already been through all the points you raise in your last post, and there's no point in my repeating myself over and over. So I'll simply conclude that we don't agree, and leave it at that.

I find it a pity that we couldn't get the discussion down to a more practical level, i.e. a few practical examples of what you believe about specific aspects of reality, as that might have helped me to understand you better. The problem I'm having in this discussion is that there's only a philosophy, which seems to have utterly terrifying implications when thought through to the end, but I have no Idea how you are aplying that philosophy to your perceived reality. Since I usually discuss theology a lot more than philosophy, the problem is somewhat familiar, but can usually be solved by breaking it down to what an implication a believe can have theoretically and what implications it actually has in the life of the one believing it.
But since we seem unable to get to that level, it's probably best to drop it, yes.

 

[JEL]

JEL: Nobody here except you dares to reduce Descartes to just this sentence and then reinterpret it in a new way to fit his concepts. The cogito ergo sum is just the climax of Descartes magnum opus, but he wrote a lot more about it and how he meant it.

He sure did write a lot more than just that single quote.

This, for example:

Good sense is, of all things among men, the most equally distributed; for every one thinks himself so abundantly provided with it

That seems to hold true

Here's another quote from that book:

Of philosophy I will say nothing, except that when I saw that it had been cultivated for so many ages by the most distinguished men; and that yet there is not a single matter within its sphere which is still not in dispute and nothing, therefore, which is above doubt, I did not presume to anticipate that my success would be greater in it than that of others.

Dear Urwumpe, in the future kindly refrain from accusing me of re-interpreting things just to suit my own needs. I find that VERY low of you.

---------- Post added at 08:11 ---------- Previous post was at 04:37 ----------

I find it a pity that we couldn't get the discussion down to a more practical level, i.e. a few practical examples of what you believe about specific aspects of reality, as that might have helped me to understand you better.

I already mentioned Maryanne Godboldo.

I've already said I believe liberty and freedom have higher value than experts and 'expert-opinions'.

And I've already made my case against the validity of your elevator-argument (by saying I believe it's based on subjectivity)

This IS really just more repetition:

YOU are afraid of other people hurting you by making elevators that crash and kill you.
In essence you are afraid of having YOUR life affected by other people. People that in YOUR view are incompetent to make good and safe decisions.
You are afraid of having YOUR freedom (the freedom to live a safe life) taken away by other people.
Your answer so far have been to want to reduce THEIR freedom to ensure YOUR freedom.

What you fail to realize, IMHO, is that science made the 'crashing elevator' that Maryanne Godboldo and her daughter was riding. And it didn't allow them to say NO to it. In this case the science-believers elevated their view to a god-like view (putting it above all else, believing they have supreme rights because of it), just like yesterday's truth-owners did toward Galileo (maybe they thought they were doing good and were really just protecting other people from the danger of what they might have seen as Galileo's 'elevator'?)

What you fail to realize, IMHO, is that YOUR view (of reality) is NOT universal.

Each individual have their OWN subjective 'elevator' to deal with, making the argument fundamentally pointless and irrelevant.

The problem I'm having in this discussion is that there's only a philosophy, which seems to have utterly terrifying implications when thought through to the end

What's so terrifying about it?

The alternative you seem to believe in; that we live in a universe that will expand to cold dark stillness... is that really any more comforting to you?

If all thought-content are mere illusions, then the thinker atleast may have a chance of turning the illusion into something more beautiful and delightful

I don't know which view is true, if any of them.

One view I would like to be true, is that of the universe being an embryo... slowly growing into a living being
Maybe that sounds a bit too 'out-of-this-world' to you. But then again, maybe it doesn't
(Somewhat similar, in it's fractal-like nature (same features repeating on different levels), to the ending of the movie "men in black", where it turns out that our universe is just 1 of many balls that some weird-looking 'alien' kids play with :lol: )
Ofcourse this doesn't say anything about what role humans have in that equation. Who knows

 

[jedidia]

I already mentioned Maryanne Godboldo.

And I already admitted that you are right on this account. What you didn't admitt is that there are things we can know with almost absolute certainty, and things where even scientists are mostly guessing, and at times forgetting that they're doing so. If you answer the question of the elevator with the answer of medical diagnosis, you're seriously overgeneralizing.

And I've already made my case against the validity of your elevator-argument (by saying I believe it's based on subjectivity)

I must have missed that, sorry. So, just to see if I understood you correctly there: to the question "do you believe an Elevator based on the assumption that g = 8 m/s^2 can lift the weight it was designed to lift", you answer with "yes".

YOU are afraid of other people hurting you by making elevators that crash and kill you.
In essence you are afraid of having YOUR life affected by other people. People that in YOUR view are incompetent to make good and safe decisions.
You are afraid of having YOUR freedom (the freedom to live a safe life) taken away by other people.
Your answer so far have been to want to reduce THEIR freedom to ensure YOUR freedom.

It seems not. I lived in a country that has exceptionally safe elevators, but decided to move to one where elevators are frequently unsafe and badly maintained, but that's just one of the minor safety issues one takes on himself when doing what I did, so it would seem to me that my safety is a minor concern here.
No, it's not MY safety and freedom that concerns me, it's safety and freedom in general. Our western society today offers exceptional freedom. Freedom that was achieved by, among other things, making life easier for people, which was done by scientists. If you take away all the technological aids we have, and the civilatory structure (which has to limit individual freedom in order to assure the same freedom for all participants) you'll take away a lot of freedom too. Because then it's just the hard cold reality that you need to find some food today or you might not live the next. There's no authority telling you what to do, but only the pure neccessity of survival dictating your every move. The only way to avoid that is having some level of civilisation, and some level of technology.

What you fail to realize, IMHO, is that science made the 'crashing elevator' that Maryanne Godboldo and her daughter was riding.

I fully realize that, and never denied it. However, I am able to evaluate certainty levels. There's a "maybe true", a "probably true" and a "pretty certainly true", which you seem to fail to realize.

The alternative you seem to believe in; that we live in a universe that will expand to cold dark stillness... is that really any more comforting to you?

Actually I believe in God, so I don't believe that the universe is a self-contained system without outside interference. As such, the laws of thermodynamics don't aply fully to my perceived situation. The difference between you and me here is that I STILL believe that the laws of thermodynamics are correct in the boundaries in which they were formulated, and not just utterly wrong and illusionary and without practical meaning.

 

[Urwumpe]

Dear Urwumpe, in the future kindly refrain from accusing me of re-interpreting things just to suit my own needs. I find that VERY low of you.

Well, why do you do that then? Also your Descartes quotes are maybe underlining your opinion of me, but don't contribute at all to the thread.

Philosophy is more than just a source of nice abstract quotes. Descartes did not begin and stop with "cogito ergo sum", but explained in a lengthy article how he arrived at this conclusion and what consequences he derived from it.

And this article was never about the the scientific process and the trustworthiness of measurements - it was about existence and the dilemma of perception, reaching to the nature of reality itself:

But I have convinced myself that there is absolutely nothing in the world, no sky, no earth, no minds, no bodies. Does it now follow that I, too, do not exist? No. If I convinced myself of something [or thought anything at all], then I certainly existed. But there is a deceiver of supreme power and cunning who deliberately and constantly deceives me. In that case, I, too, undoubtedly exist, if he deceives me; and let him deceive me as much as he can, he will never bring it about that I am nothing, so long as I think that I am something. So, after considering everything very thoroughly, I must finally conclude that the proposition, I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind.

Short: It doesn't matter if the world around you exists, or does not exist, since the consequences for your perception are the same. You can't break the illusion of a wrong reality, that only exists in your mind, since you can only interact within this perceived reality.

It is absolutely wrong, if you want to claim that other people could see the world differently because of cogito ergo sum and be perfectly right as well. That is a reduction of Descartes philosophy that removes the meaning from it. These people are wrong if their own logical conclusions are wrong. That is the key aspect.

You must not believe others. Sure. You can claim the moon is made of cheese regardless the evidence somebody else delivers. But this also applies to them: In you world, you might be the lone guardian of the truth, in their world, you are just a nutcase.

The most important part of why Cogito Ergo Sum is a crucial philosophical law is told by Descartes that way:

Archimedes used to demand just one firm and immovable point in order to shift the entire earth; so I too can hope for great things if I manage to find just one thing, however slight, that is certain and unshakable.

His own existence has to be confirmed first, before he can accept the existence of the world around him.

(Am I happy that I never went into studying philosophy, dealing with it every other month makes my head hurt and conclude "I am confused, ergo I need a beer")

Further questions?

 

[JEL]

And I already admitted that you are right on this account.

Can we then agree that liberty and freedom must come before science-based domination?

That science can not be used as a reason to take away other people's liberty and freedom?

If we can agree on that, then all the rest is really of no greater concern to me

What you didn't admitt is that there are things we can know with almost absolute certainty, and things where even scientists are mostly guessing, and at times forgetting that they're doing so. If you answer the question of the elevator with the answer of medical diagnosis, you're seriously overgeneralizing.

I've said I believe in "cogito ergo sum". It's meaning is simply that if you are aware of your thoughts they must exist. So I have acknowledged that I believe that existence of your own thoughts can be known by yourself with certainty. The content of your own thoughts, however, can not be known by yourself with certainty, IMO (as always it is IMO only! )

Elevators and medicine are both concepts that exist as thought-content, and therefore belongs to the realm of what can not be known with absolute certainty.

Your thoughts are there, it's hard to doubt that, but what you think OF may be either objectively real (as in: existing independent of your mind, and will remain in existence even if your mind goes away) or may be an illusion (as in: existing because of your mind, and will cease to exist if your mind goes away)

So, just to see if I understood you correctly there: to the question "do you believe an Elevator based on the assumption that g = 8 m/s^2 can lift the weight it was designed to lift", you answer with "yes".

You brought up your elevator argument to counter my request for personal liberty and freedom, saying that if people were free they would begin to build elevators on all kinds of random numbers and crazy ideas.

You used this elevator-example as your case against allowing people freedom.

Here's my reply:
Show me someone who intends to make elevators like this, and then we can take it from there.

We live in a society were competition is hailed as the holy grail or yellow brick road to happiness and progress. If competition is really the bringer of joy, prosperity and happiness, then let people compete. Invent your own gravity, and may the best gravity win. Just don't expect people not to fight for their own views if you try to suppress them (they would be truly crazy if they didn't)

And don't use scare-tactics (your, either real or imaginary, fears of what you think MIGHT happen, such as elevators built by nutty fruitcakes who want to eat all the cheese off the moon causing it to never be full again) to limit other people's liberty and freedom. Because the moment that happens, then it becomes PURE politics and will nolonger have anything in common with the pursuit of true knowledge and true disciplines of science.

So, to round this part off; show me someone who seriously wants to build elevators on top of the g = 8 m/s^2 notion (and are willing to spend money on it)
I dare you, jedidia, to find such people

No, it's not MY safety and freedom that concerns me, it's safety and freedom in general. Our western society today offers exceptional freedom. Freedom that was achieved by, among other things, making life easier for people, which was done by scientists. If you take away all the technological aids we have, and the civilatory structure (which has to limit individual freedom in order to assure the same freedom for all participants) you'll take away a lot of freedom too. Because then it's just the hard cold reality that you need to find some food today or you might not live the next. There's no authority telling you what to do, but only the pure neccessity of survival dictating your every move. The only way to avoid that is having some level of civilisation, and some level of technology.

Science neither gives freedom nor imprisonment... it is how it is USED (by those in power, such as the political establishment or the rich or influential elite) that determines the result.

Surveillance cameras, for example, take away your freedom to walk in privacy, but give you freedom from being falsely accused of some action.

There are 2 sides, not 1.

Science doesn't only make life easier, it also makes it harder.

Before nuclear power, no-one in Fukushima city had to move away to make it easier for them to survive from radiation poisening...
But ofcourse it was harder for them to get electricity.

2 sides, not 1.

Science is not the protector of freedom.
It is just a tool that can be used for both good and evil.
Science is like a gun; it does not discriminate. Only people discriminate.

I fully realize that, and never denied it. However, I am able to evaluate certainty levels. There's a "maybe true", a "probably true" and a "pretty certainly true", which you seem to fail to realize.

Ok, I will agree with you that I don't see gradients of certainty when it comes to thought-content. I believe no thought-content can be said to be certain as long as we haven't yet determined if it comes into existence because of outside influence (true and actual objectivity) or because of internal stimuli (the illusion of objectivity)

Actually I believe in God, so I don't believe that the universe is a self-contained system without outside interference. As such, the laws of thermodynamics don't aply fully to my perceived situation. The difference between you and me here is that I STILL believe that the laws of thermodynamics are correct in the boundaries in which they were formulated, and not just utterly wrong and illusionary and without practical meaning.

It's a belief
As long as we can agree on that (that it's a belief, rather than an undeniable fact), I won't contend whatever you believe, but rather allow you the liberty and freedom to find whatever you seek from your life in it
If your beliefs make you happy, then there's a chance that happiness will rub off on me, and I would be irrational if I didn't welcome that

Free people are, in my experience, happier people.
(and by free I don't mean as in homeless living on the street competing with the birds on eating around the mold on stale bread crumbs, but free as in having access to actual decision-making options regarding your own life. A homeless person is not free, by my definition of free, if they're not homeless by their own choice. You're only free if you can make choices)




jedidia, this has turned into another horribly long post... and I know from my experience on internet-forums that loathing are often expressed towards long posts... but alas I didn't see how I could truncate it any further without losing the actual meaning or ignoring parts of your post.

If I should try to narrow it down to the original subject, that of the teacher presenting a non-mainstream view, then I really don't think it's any big deal
What's YOUR opinion on the original subject?

Well, why do you do that then?

I don't.

Also your Descartes quotes are maybe underlining your opinion of me, but don't contribute at all to the thread.

Neither does your false accusations against me, for having ulterior motives.
That was a personal attack on my character, Urwumpe. Not a productive informational contribution.

Philosophy is more than just a source of nice abstract quotes.

I agree.

Descartes did not begin and stop with "cogito ergo sum", but explained in a lengthy article how he arrived at this conclusion and what consequences he derived from it.

I agree.

And this article was never about the the scientific process and the trustworthiness of measurements - it was about existence and the dilemma of perception, reaching to the nature of reality itself

Yet his book (from which "cogito ergo sum" stems) was titled:

Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting One's Reason and of Seeking Truth in the Sciences (French title: Discours de la méthode pour bien conduire sa raison, et chercher la vérité dans les sciences).

It doesn't matter if the world around you exists, or does not exist, since the consequences for your perception are the same. You can't break the illusion of a wrong reality, that only exists in your mind, since you can only interact within this perceived reality.

Whether or not something matters to someone can only be a personal choice. It's not your duty, or right, to make choices for anyone but yourself.

The moment you claim that something doesn't matter at all, you elevate YOUR private opinion to a level where it does not belong. By elevating your private beliefs into universal truths you make yourself god. Be a god to yourself all you like, but not to anyone else (unless they specifically desire that from you ofcourse)

It is absolutely wrong, if you want to claim that other people could see the world differently because of cogito ergo sum and be perfectly right as well. That is a reduction of Descartes philosophy that removes the meaning from it. These people are wrong if their own logical conclusions are wrong. That is the key aspect.

"Cogito ergo sum" does not exclude the possibility of multiple self-aware minds existing within the same truly objective world.

"Cogito ergo sum" excludes only 1 thing; the possibility that you do NOT exist.

"Cogito ergo sum" proves only 1 thing; that YOU exist.

Your personally experienced "Cogito" can be entirely self-made, a fully personal/private/internal illusion without any outside stimuli influencing it. In that case it could be considered the absolute world, since nothing is outside it.

It can also be partly influenced by a surrounding truly objective world (which may or may not include OTHER "cogito's", or maybe even ONLY include a number of "cogito's"). In that case it could NOT be considered the absolute world, since there would be things outside it.

If the true world is made up of 3 co-existing "cogito's", each of which is only partly influenced by each-other, then you could have a situation where "cogito" #1 receives certain stimuli from #2 and #3. These stimuli may be received ONLY by #1. #2 receives from #1 and #3, and #3 receives from #1 and #2. If whatever stimuli each single "cogito" receives from the other 2, are NOT re-transmitted... then there IS a possibility that each "cogito" might experience a completely different world-view than the other 2. End-result MIGHT be 3 very different views that don't look anything similar to each-other (except for 1 thing, which they all have in common: the fact that they are self-aware, the fact that they all can subscribe to the fact of "cogito ergo sum")

This is just 1 possibility of an endless number of possibilities

You must not believe others. Sure. You can claim the moon is made of cheese regardless the evidence somebody else delivers. But this also applies to them: In you world, you might be the lone guardian of the truth, in their world, you are just a nutcase.

As long as we give each-other liberty and freedom, you can define anyone as a nutcase.

If we abandon liberty and freedom, in favor of an absolutist dictatorial world-view, only those in power may define someone as a nutcase.

Which world do you prefer? The one where you have a say, or the one where you do NOT have a say?
It's not really a tough choice, is it?

(Am I happy that I never went into studying philosophy, dealing with it every other month makes my head hurt and conclude "I am confused, ergo I need a beer")

We all have our personal areas of interest where we invest more of our effort and try to get in shape. Some people do sports, and can run miles without losing their breath, other people sing opera, and can sing night after night without losing their voice, and some people ponder about philosophy so often they either have become immune to losing their mind or have already lost it

Further questions?

No

 

[jedidia]

Can we then agree that liberty and freedom must come before science-based domination?

If it means not aknowledging the existance of reality, no. Reality is perogative, not because I say so, but because that's simply the way it is.

If however you mean that we should be very carefull as to what we consider included in that perogative, then yes.

You brought up your elevator argument to counter my request for personal liberty and freedom, saying that if people were free they would begin to build elevators on all kinds of random numbers and crazy ideas.

Hmmm, that's a bit of a misunderstanding there. I was bringing up the elevator not to counter your calls for liberty, but to measure to how far you propose to extend that liberty into the realm of the overruling perogative called reality. Any overruling of our opinions on reality, I can live with, as long as they take reality for serious and will therefore not touch the practically certain without having a more certain alternative. Any overruling of that perogative in itself borders dangerously close to insanity of one kind or another.
As such I made the elevator argument not as a counter, but as an attempt to grasp the implications of the philosophy you're proposing.

So, to round this part off; show me someone who seriously wants to build elevators on top of the g = 8 m/s^2 notion (and are willing to spend money on it)
I dare you, jedidia, to find such people

So why did you not jsut answer that question with no, so I can at least know that you haven't lost your marbles? I'm trying to understand you, it's all I've been trying to do for the last 2 pages, and you haven't been very helpfull.

And don't use scare-tactics (your, either real or imaginary, fears of what you think MIGHT happen, such as elevators built by nutty fruitcakes who want to eat all the cheese off the moon causing it to never be full again) to limit other people's liberty and freedom. Because the moment that happens, then it becomes PURE politics and will nolonger have anything in common with the pursuit of true knowledge and true disciplines of science.

And here is where we finally get to our problem: You ARE discussing politics, veiled in a philosophical argument, while I was all the while assuming that we were talking philosophy. I'm not doing scare tactics to limit your freedom. I'm trying to grasp the logical implications of your philosophy to their full extend, on a purely hypothetical basis. It's what philosophers usually do, you know.
And fact is, that if this philosophy is aplied to its full extent, it means that someone CAN make an Elevator on the assumption of g =8 m/s^2, and it WILL work, if he is convinced of it. Which, to someone that does not have the utter delusion of denying the perogative of reality, is simply silly, no matter what political motives involved.

Science neither gives freedom nor imprisonment... it is how it is USED (by those in power, such as the political establishment or the rich or influential elite) that determines the result.

Why, thank you, I was trying to say something along these lines all the time.

Your thoughts are there, it's hard to doubt that, but what you think OF may be either objectively real (as in: existing independent of your mind, and will remain in existence even if your mind goes away) or may be an illusion (as in: existing because of your mind, and will cease to exist if your mind goes away)

And here again we're having trouble with communications, it seems. In my first post to the topic, I stated the assumption that you and I both exist, and was working from that assumption ever since. Since you didn't say anything about it, I assumed that you' agreed to work on the basis of that assumption. Without us both working by it, the whole discussion was pointless, since the perogative of reality can only be shown in its common perception by two or more individuals who aknowledge each others existance.

What's YOUR opinion on the original subject?

That some people think there's no gravity on the moon? I think it's a very sad state of education, although all in all not a relevant one AS LONG as the people for which it is relevant don't get the funny Idea that it might indeed be so. I.e. since the teacher that said this is a language teacher and maybe not even said the thing in class, as I said, she could be encouraged, in a friendly manner, to educate herself.
If she was a physics teacher making such statements in class, and I were her schools director, you can bet she'd find herself without a job the very next day.


There, my browser just ate my post. Thanks God I trained myself to ctrl-c!

 

[JEL]

Can we then agree that liberty and freedom must come before science-based domination?

If it means not aknowledging the existance of reality, no. Reality is perogative, not because I say so, but because that's simply the way it is.

It seems to me your view is in conflict with democracy

Technocracy is a form of government in which engineers, scientists, health professionals and other technical experts are in control of decision making

...

In all cases technical and leadership skills are selected through bureaucratic processes ... rather than democratic election

Any overruling of our opinions on reality, I can live with, as long as they take reality for serious and will therefore not touch the practically certain without having a more certain alternative.

You say that as long as those in power agree with YOU, all is fine.
I'm sorry, but IMO that appears to be a dangerous, almost fundamentalist, view. It's the same type of thinking that got Galileo in trouble: "WE know the truth! YOU don't! You are hereby convicted of unlawful beliefs and unlawful thinking, Galileo!".

You ARE discussing politics, veiled in a philosophical argument

Obviously I am talking about both, since they are inter-connected and since I've already said it was the comments about firing her (the teacher this topic is really about) from her job that got me into this thread in the first place.

That some people think there's no gravity on the moon? I think it's a very sad state of education, although all in all not a relevant one AS LONG as the people for which it is relevant don't get the funny Idea that it might indeed be so. I.e. since the teacher that said this is a language teacher and maybe not even said the thing in class, as I said, she could be encouraged, in a friendly manner, to educate herself.
If she was a physics teacher making such statements in class, and I were her schools director, you can bet she'd find herself without a job the very next day.

"Educate yourself!". That is such a good statement
That's what people should do

 

[Hielor]

It seems to me your view is in conflict with democracy

Let's put it to a vote, then. Vote to change gravity to 8m/s^2 instead of 9.8m/s^2.

Oh, wait. Right.

When it comes to physical laws, there's no room for personal interpretation. Our understanding of them might change over time, but what's actually going on doesn't change just because you want it to.

 

[RichWall]

Let's put it to a vote, then. Vote to change gravity to 8m/s^2 instead of 9.8m/s^2.

Oh, wait. Right.

I am pretty sure that's not what he was saying.

When it comes to physical laws, there's no room for personal interpretation. Our understanding of them might change over time, but what's actually going on doesn't change just because you want it to.

While reality is what it is, Our perception of it changes over time as we learn and is finite. An open and free discussion hastens the rate of advancement and consensus among experts verses having an arrogant attitude stuck on the standard model of the time.

 

[Hielor]

While reality is what it is, Our perception of it changes over time as we learn and is finite. An open and free discussion hastens the rate of advancement and consensus among experts verses having an arrogant attitude stuck on the standard model of the time.

And if someone can present actual evidence to support gravity being something other than 9.8m/s^2, I'm sure the scientific community will happily have an "open and free discussion" on the matter.

"It might be something different" or "everything is subjective, so you're wrong" are not scientifically supportable evidence.