Envy and the End of knowledge

Rom Harr gives an insight into a fundamental fact of particle physics, that since all electrons are not observed to be different, it is logical that they are exactly alike. He says this is

... very likely a consequence of our ignorance of their nature, and there is no reason to suppose that were we able to study electrons closely, they would not show identifiable characteristics that marked them off as individuals.
(William Poundstone, Labyrinths of Reason)

A guess about the nature of things unseen, like electrons, is hardly a substantial fundamental fact. It might be argued that it can be called a fundamental fact because there is no proof to the contrary. But this is a logical fallacy (called argumentum ad ignorantium, an argument from ignorance). Is it a fundamental fact that all Martians are green because there is no proof otherwise? All we are left with is the certainty that the fundamental facts of induction cannot be called truths.

We cannot identify science with truth, for we think that both Newton's and Einstein's theories belong to science, but they cannot both be true, and they may well both be false.
(Karl Popper)

Reason fermented within sense perception distills no certain truth, because sense perception always raises further questions about itself. Inductive thinkers freely admit that there is no limit to speculative explanations of observations. Observations explained by one theory (for instance, Newton's) can be explained by a quite opposite theory (Einstein's). Speculation, scientists say, is the best estimate of the truth. But all that is certain about a best estimate is that it cannot be certain.

It is ironic, then, that a scientist's uncertain estimates are his source of professional pride. And that pride is the envy of other scientists, whose profession is to refute him and establish their own best estimates. Thus how can science reach a final conclusion, an ultimate truth, an end to all arguments? Its purpose is to lend the appearance of reasonability to a profession of competing egoists. The only why it finds, and the only reason for its own existence, is the ego itself.

Scientific knowledge is not some tested body of truths about how the world works but is the result of a competitive struggle for the ear of the community, waged by the protagonists of various competing points of view by whatever means comes to hand, including propaganda, the unscrupulous exercise of power, and skillful use of persuasive rhetoric.
(Rom Harr, The Philosophies of Science. Harr himself does not necessarily agree with this viewpoint on science, though he calls it interesting....)

Can scientific research expect to reach an end to all knowledge (eg - how the universe works and how life works) as long as egotism (pride, envy, etc) is cultivated amongst the practitioners?

There's no such thing as a "scientific" mind—just a well trained mind disciplined to tackle questions from a scientific framework. There are many other frameworks that compose the many many facets of human nature too, you know—all of which have this thingy called drive. And some people's drives are quite exciting and distinct. So, to deny the ego is to deny the drive to self-knowledge—as surely as a newbie-scientist has the ego to differentiate himself from the layperson.

There's no such thing as a "scientific" mind—just a well trained mind disciplined to tackle questions from a scientific framework. There are many other frameworks that compose the many many facets of human nature too, you know—all of which have this thingy called drive. And some people's drives are quite exciting and distinct. So, to deny the ego is to deny the drive to self-knowledge—as surely as a newbie-scientist has the ego to differentiate himself from the layperson.

then what is the inextricable link between ego and envy?
IOW on what basis do you suggest that without envy it would be impossible for us to function in the pursuit of knowledge?

Oh, I ignored that particular connotation you gave for egoism; felt it was over-stretched to make your point.

Oh, I ignored that particular connotation you gave for egoism; felt it was over-stretched to make your point.
lol
well to take it back a notch then, on what basis do you say that "scientific training" is some how separate from issues of "striving ego" given the gap of physics William Poundstone is negotiating?

lightgigantic:

You really seem to have it in for science. But can you suggest a superior method of obtaining useful knowledge? I wonder whether the envy you speak of is really the scientists', or whether it might be yours.

Rom Harr gives an insight into a fundamental fact of particle physics, that since all electrons are not observed to be different, it is logical that they are exactly alike. He says this is
... very likely a consequence of our ignorance of their nature, and there is no reason to suppose that were we able to study electrons closely, they would not show identifiable characteristics that marked them off as individuals.
(William Poundstone, Labyrinths of Reason)

A guess about the nature of things unseen, like electrons, is hardly a substantial fundamental fact.

You almost touch on the nature of scientific theory here, but then go off on your usual tangent and miss the point completely.

Scientific theories are all provisional. Thus, you are close to saying something true when you say that the scientific belief that electrons are all indistinguishable is a "guess". But "guess" for you is a dismissal of what is actually a strength of science. In science, entities and properties are not postulated unless they are necessary to explain some observable.

There has never been any reason to refer to Betty electron and Bob electron and Henry electron, because no observation has ever given us any reason to suspect that electrons are like little independent, distinguishable people with their own personalities. You can imagine they are, if you like, but don't pretend you're saying anything real or useful about the world.

In fact, in the case of electrons, there are very good reasons to expect that they are indistinguishable in a quantum sense. The proof of that is in the fact that they behave as fermions. Look it up if you're interested. You'll need a book on statistical thermodynamics.

It might be argued that it can be called a fundamental fact because there is no proof to the contrary. But this is a logical fallacy (called argumentum ad ignorantium, an argument from ignorance). Is it a fundamental fact that all Martians are green because there is no proof otherwise? All we are left with is the certainty that the fundamental facts of induction cannot be called truths.

You missed the point, like I said. In the case of electrons, there is no evidence - none at all - that individual electrons are distinguishable from one another, and considerable evidence that they are indistinguishable. In contrast, there is no evidence either way for the colour of Martians, so we can draw no conclusions at all about them.

We cannot identify science with truth, for we think that both Newton's and Einstein's theories belong to science, but they cannot both be true, and they may well both be false. (Karl Popper)

You're fond of this quote, aren't you? Are you familiar with Popper's philosophy of science, or do you just pick out the parts that suit your argument? Research falsifiability and you'll find out what Popper was really on about.

Inductive thinkers freely admit that there is no limit to speculative explanations of observations. Observations explained by one theory (for instance, Newton's) can be explained by a quite opposite theory (Einstein's).

You picked a terrible example. Einstein's relativity incorporates Newtonian mechanics as a special case. They are about as far from being "opposite" theories as you can get.

It is ironic, then, that a scientist's uncertain estimates are his source of professional pride.

Sticking with physics for a moment, one of the things that defines it as the "hardest" of sciences is the fact that, in general, its uncertainties are precisely, numerically quantified. Why should that not be a source of pride?

Again, I am tempted to ask what you have to offer that might be superior, other than your own inferior "estimates" of what you imagine the world might be like.

Thus how can science reach a final conclusion, an ultimate truth, an end to all arguments?

If you think that is the purpose of science, you clearly haven't understood your own Popper quote.

Its purpose is to lend the appearance of reasonability to a profession of competing egoists. The only why it finds, and the only reason for its own existence, is the ego itself.

And yet, your computer exists. I guess some scientist's ego must have belched it out.

Can scientific research expect to reach an end to all knowledge (eg - how the universe works and how life works) as long as egotism (pride, envy, etc) is cultivated amongst the practitioners?

Scientists are human. Do you have a better alternative?

Can scientific research expect to reach an end to all knowledge (eg - how the universe works and how life works) as long as egotism (pride, envy, etc) is cultivated amongst the practitioners?

I don't see how this is any different than the emotional and intellectual competitiveness that drives any other field of human endeavor. While on the one hand I would like to see a spirit of cooperation and mutual love guide human beings in all their activities, on the other I'm too much of a realist to believe that will happen and I have to admit that envy may actually be necessary for "progress" and not a hinderance to it. Envy and greed are very powerful motivators, perhaps not as powerful as love but certainly much more universal, and people can accomplish quite a bit based on those baser motives.

JamesR

You really seem to have it in for science.
By suggesting that scientists have something to gain by being free from envy?

But can you suggest a superior method of obtaining useful knowledge?
yes, but this is neither the thread nor the sub-category to discuss it

I wonder whether the envy you speak of is really the scientists', or whether it might be yours.
the only problems science has worked towards solving are those that we can objectify (indicate as existing separate from our selves)
Actually our problems exist on a subjective platform, and thus real solutions to problems lie in being introspective
For instance if I am a wrathful person, how will a computer, air conditioner or expensive car help me solve my problems of wrath? (in fact they will probably add to the problem)

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Rom Harr gives an insight into a fundamental fact of particle physics, that since all electrons are not observed to be different, it is logical that they are exactly alike. He says this is
... very likely a consequence of our ignorance of their nature, and there is no reason to suppose that were we able to study electrons closely, they would not show identifiable characteristics that marked them off as individuals.
(William Poundstone, Labyrinths of Reason)

A guess about the nature of things unseen, like electrons, is hardly a substantial fundamental fact.
but its interesting to see how many claims that science currently holds as indubitable (macro-evolution , abiogenesis, prehistory, etc) frequently call upon such "guesses" in their logical explanations
”
You almost touch on the nature of scientific theory here, but then go off on your usual tangent and miss the point completely.

Scientific theories are all provisional. Thus, you are close to saying something true when you say that the scientific belief that electrons are all indistinguishable is a "guess". But "guess" for you is a dismissal of what is actually a strength of science. In science, entities and properties are not postulated unless they are necessary to explain some observable.
hence type I and type II errors arise

There has never been any reason to refer to Betty electron and Bob electron and Henry electron, because no observation has ever given us any reason to suspect that electrons are like little independent, distinguishable people with their own personalities. You can imagine they are, if you like, but don't pretend you're saying anything real or useful about the world.

In fact, in the case of electrons, there are very good reasons to expect that they are indistinguishable in a quantum sense. The proof of that is in the fact that they behave as fermions. Look it up if you're interested. You'll need a book on statistical thermodynamics.
notice how you went from "very good reasons" (ie rationalism - guess) to proof (empiricism - direct perception) in forming this premise

“
It might be argued that it can be called a fundamental fact because there is no proof to the contrary. But this is a logical fallacy (called argumentum ad ignorantium, an argument from ignorance). Is it a fundamental fact that all Martians are green because there is no proof otherwise? All we are left with is the certainty that the fundamental facts of induction cannot be called truths.
”
You missed the point, like I said. In the case of electrons, there is no evidence - none at all - that individual electrons are distinguishable from one another, and considerable evidence that they are indistinguishable.

In contrast, there is no evidence either way for the colour of Martians, so we can draw no conclusions at all about them.

its the nature of rationalism to call upon it when we reach the limits of empiricism - however it is the nature of fallacy to call upon (or rather borrow from - eg use the word "proof") empiricism to justify claims that are composed by rationalism

“
We cannot identify science with truth, for we think that both Newton's and Einstein's theories belong to science, but they cannot both be true, and they may well both be false. (Karl Popper)
”
You're fond of this quote, aren't you? Are you familiar with Popper's philosophy of science, or do you just pick out the parts that suit your argument?
Its short and concise and thus suitable for posting on forums like these

Research falsifiability and you'll find out what Popper was really on about.
I dealt with that in a separate thread


At no stage are we able to prove that what we now know is true, and it is always possible that it will turn out to be false. Indeed, it is an elementary fact about the intellectual history of mankind that most of what has been known at one time or another has eventually turned out to be not the case. So it is a profound mistake to try to do what scientists and philosophers have almost always tried to do, namely prove the truth of a theory, or justify our belief in a theory, since this is to attempt the logically impossible.

That sums up the view of the philosopher Karl Popper (1902-1994), who argued that science cannot verify anything. It is only able to falsify, to disprove claims of knowledge. A truly scientific statement is one that gives a high degree of information and is subjectable to rigorous attempts to disprove it. As long as it passes the tests, it may be called knowledge, although it can never be absolutely true. Sooner or later, as testing methods advance, the statement will be proved false. Now, science cannot test a believer's claim that God exists. Therefore science will never prove that God is false. But neither will a believer be able to prove that God is true, for according to Popper there is no way to prove any truth. So while God may exist in some way, He does not exist scientifically, hence science need not be bothered. The strategy of ignoring God statements and other dogmas as nonscience, instead of attacking them as nonsense, spares science from reflexively becoming a dogma itself.

At least, that was Popper's hope.

There is one problem, though. If Popper's theory is checked against his definition of scientific knowledge, it must be deemed unscientific. Falsifiability fails as science because of the very paradox of self-reference it was supposed to be immune to. There is no way the theory of falsifiability can test itself!


“
Inductive thinkers freely admit that there is no limit to speculative explanations of observations. Observations explained by one theory (for instance, Newton's) can be explained by a quite opposite theory (Einstein's).
”
You picked a terrible example. Einstein's relativity incorporates Newtonian mechanics as a special case. They are about as far from being "opposite" theories as you can get.
you miss the point - one error is superseded by another - thus inductive thinkers freely admit that there is no limit to speculative explanations of observations

“
It is ironic, then, that a scientist's uncertain estimates are his source of professional pride.
”
Sticking with physics for a moment, one of the things that defines it as the "hardest" of sciences is the fact that, in general, its uncertainties are precisely, numerically quantified. Why should that not be a source of pride?
really?
the "hardness" of physics goes out the window the more it relies on rationalistic logic to explain itself - thus the further you go in to rationalism, the slimmer and slimmer the consensus gets
(how many contending schools of thought are there on the topic of quantum mechanics?)

Again, I am tempted to ask what you have to offer that might be superior, other than your own inferior "estimates" of what you imagine the world might be like.
given that physics cannot indicate a SINGLE thing in the universe and say what it ultimately is, its not clear why you think it is superior

“
Thus how can science reach a final conclusion, an ultimate truth, an end to all arguments?
”
If you think that is the purpose of science, you clearly haven't understood your own Popper quote.
as indicated, there's no way for a theory of falsification to test itself

“
Its purpose is to lend the appearance of reasonability to a profession of competing egoists. The only why it finds, and the only reason for its own existence, is the ego itself.
”
And yet, your computer exists. I guess some scientist's ego must have belched it out.
lol - certainly - and a host of other insignificant toys

“
Can scientific research expect to reach an end to all knowledge (eg - how the universe works and how life works) as long as egotism (pride, envy, etc) is cultivated amongst the practitioners?
”
Scientists are human. Do you have a better alternative?
humans that aren't driven by false ego which arises from placing one's fallible mind and senses on the altar of awe and reverence

Maxq

I don't see how this is any different than the emotional and intellectual competitiveness that drives any other field of human endeavor. While on the one hand I would like to see a spirit of cooperation and mutual love guide human beings in all their activities, on the other I'm too much of a realist to believe that will happen and I have to admit that envy may actually be necessary for "progress" and not a hinderance to it. Envy and greed are very powerful motivators, perhaps not as powerful as love but certainly much more universal, and people can accomplish quite a bit based on those baser motives.

while I don't contend that a competitive spirit can certainly be a healthy addition to any field, the notion of envy (ie cutting down the success of others as opposed to improving one's own performance) tends to spoil the scene (outside of machiavellian pursuits)

thus there are many things that can be achieved in envy saturated science, but coming to the end of knowledge (or the solution to all problems) is not one of them - such pursuits can only lead to solutions that are problems in the making

lightgigantic:

But can you suggest a superior method of obtaining useful knowledge?

yes, but this is neither the thread nor the sub-category to discuss it

The fact is, you have no such method. Why not just admit it rather than prevaricating?

the only problems science has worked towards solving are those that we can objectify (indicate as existing separate from our selves)
Actually our problems exist on a subjective platform, and thus real solutions to problems lie in being introspective
For instance if I am a wrathful person, how will a computer, air conditioner or expensive car help me solve my problems of wrath? (in fact they will probably add to the problem)

One moment you're talking about science; the next you're talking about technology. Sure, an air conditioner won't help cure your wrathfulness, but medicine based in science might.

You seem terribly confused about what science is and what it does.

In fact, in the case of electrons, there are very good reasons to expect that they are indistinguishable in a quantum sense. The proof of that is in the fact that they behave as fermions. Look it up if you're interested. You'll need a book on statistical thermodynamics.

notice how you went from "very good reasons" (ie rationalism - guess) to proof (empiricism - direct perception) in forming this premise

There is no "guessing" in the statistical theory of fermions.

And rationalism is not the same as "guessing".

Why use terms if you don't know what they mean?

You're fond of this quote, aren't you? Are you familiar with Popper's philosophy of science, or do you just pick out the parts that suit your argument?

Its short and concise and thus suitable for posting on forums like these

I note you avoided the question.

My guess is you haven't read Popper.

At no stage are we able to prove that what we now know is true, and it is always possible that it will turn out to be false. Indeed, it is an elementary fact about the intellectual history of mankind that most of what has been known at one time or another has eventually turned out to be not the case. So it is a profound mistake to try to do what scientists and philosophers have almost always tried to do, namely prove the truth of a theory, or justify our belief in a theory, since this is to attempt the logically impossible.

That sums up the view of the philosopher Karl Popper (1902-1994), who argued that science cannot verify anything. It is only able to falsify, to disprove claims of knowledge.

I don't know who wrote this, by I'm starting to doubt whether they understood Popper's point, either.

A truly scientific statement is one that gives a high degree of information and is subjectable to rigorous attempts to disprove it. As long as it passes the tests, it may be called knowledge, although it can never be absolutely true. Sooner or later, as testing methods advance, the statement will be proved false.

The last statement here is completely false. There is no guarantee that any particular scientific theory will ever be proved false.

There is one problem, though. If Popper's theory is checked against his definition of scientific knowledge, it must be deemed unscientific. Falsifiability fails as science because of the very paradox of self-reference it was supposed to be immune to. There is no way the theory of falsifiability can test itself!

Clearly, the author of this is also confused.

Falsifiability is a description of science, or a criterion for judging what is scientific and what is not. It is not a scientific theory itself. A simple point, one would have thought.

You picked a terrible example. Einstein's relativity incorporates Newtonian mechanics as a special case. They are about as far from being "opposite" theories as you can get.

you miss the point - one error is superseded by another - thus inductive thinkers freely admit that there is no limit to speculative explanations of observations

Speculative explanations are only limited by imagination. Scientific ones are limited in that they must accord with evidence and observation.

the "hardness" of physics goes out the window the more it relies on rationalistic logic to explain itself - thus the further you go in to rationalism, the slimmer and slimmer the consensus gets
(how many contending schools of thought are there on the topic of quantum mechanics?)

There is a scientific consensus about quantum mechanics, except perhaps at the leading edge of research. So, that's one school of thought, I guess.

given that physics cannot indicate a SINGLE thing in the universe and say what it ultimately is, its not clear why you think it is superior

This is a wishy-washy attempt at obfuscation.

The fact is, once again, you can't suggest any "superior" way to obtain the "ultimate" knowledge you think exists.

humans that aren't driven by false ego which arises from placing one's fallible mind and senses on the altar of awe and reverence

Obviously, you don't believe your own propaganda, since scientists are human.

JamesR

“

“
But can you suggest a superior method of obtaining useful knowledge?
”
yes, but this is neither the thread nor the sub-category to discuss it
”
The fact is, you have no such method.
the fact is that it isn't defined as coming within the purview of the imperfect mind or the senses

Why not just admit it rather than prevaricating?
why not admit that you place the mind and senses on the platform of awe and reverence?

“
the only problems science has worked towards solving are those that we can objectify (indicate as existing separate from our selves)
Actually our problems exist on a subjective platform, and thus real solutions to problems lie in being introspective
For instance if I am a wrathful person, how will a computer, air conditioner or expensive car help me solve my problems of wrath? (in fact they will probably add to the problem)
”
One moment you're talking about science; the next you're talking about technology.
when I raise issue of the limits of scientific knowledge you say to the effect "well you have a computer" - if you want to suggest some other prototype for the "success" of science, be my guest

Sure, an air conditioner won't help cure your wrathfulness, but medicine based in science might.
so you want to argue that advances in the field of medicine have dramatically reduced wrath/envy/lust/etc in the world?
:confused:

You seem terribly confused about what science is and what it does.
you seem to be confused about what science can accomplish and what it cannot accomplish
(IOW what you can and cannot accomplish by working with the mind and senses)

“

“
In fact, in the case of electrons, there are very good reasons to expect that they are indistinguishable in a quantum sense. The proof of that is in the fact that they behave as fermions. Look it up if you're interested. You'll need a book on statistical thermodynamics.
”
notice how you went from "very good reasons" (ie rationalism - guess) to proof (empiricism - direct perception) in forming this premise
”
There is no "guessing" in the statistical theory of fermions.
but what this "proves is a separate issue

And rationalism is not the same as "guessing".
given that it is called to force when one is going beyond the purview of one's senses, its not clear how it could be anything else

Why use terms if you don't know what they mean?
I could ask you the same


You're fond of this quote, aren't you? Are you familiar with Popper's philosophy of science, or do you just pick out the parts that suit your argument?
”
Its short and concise and thus suitable for posting on forums like these
”
I note you avoided the question.
if you think otherwise, quote something to the contrary

My guess is you haven't read Popper.
My guess is that rather than discuss the implications of a topic of discussion, you would rather split hairs over who is the smartest

“
At no stage are we able to prove that what we now know is true, and it is always possible that it will turn out to be false. Indeed, it is an elementary fact about the intellectual history of mankind that most of what has been known at one time or another has eventually turned out to be not the case. So it is a profound mistake to try to do what scientists and philosophers have almost always tried to do, namely prove the truth of a theory, or justify our belief in a theory, since this is to attempt the logically impossible.

That sums up the view of the philosopher Karl Popper (1902-1994), who argued that science cannot verify anything. It is only able to falsify, to disprove claims of knowledge.
”
I don't know who wrote this, by I'm starting to doubt whether they understood Popper's point, either.
So far the only thing we have to go for that the quote is taken out of context is that it doesn't tally with your value system
:shrug:



“
A truly scientific statement is one that gives a high degree of information and is subjectable to rigorous attempts to disprove it. As long as it passes the tests, it may be called knowledge, although it can never be absolutely true. Sooner or later, as testing methods advance, the statement will be proved false.
”
The last statement here is completely false. There is no guarantee that any particular scientific theory will ever be proved false.
maybe you can name a particular scientific theory that you are convinced is such an example so we can examine the foundations for your claim
[QUOTE]
“
There is one problem, though. If Popper's theory is checked against his definition of scientific knowledge, it must be deemed unscientific. Falsifiability fails as science because of the very paradox of self-reference it was supposed to be immune to. There is no way the theory of falsifiability can test itself!
”
Clearly, the author of this is also confused.

Falsifiability is a description of science, or a criterion for judging what is scientific and what is not. It is not a scientific theory itself. A simple point, one would have thought.
Its not clear why being at the foundation of science somehow makes it exempt from theory

“

“
You picked a terrible example. Einstein's relativity incorporates Newtonian mechanics as a special case. They are about as far from being "opposite" theories as you can get.
”
you miss the point - one error is superseded by another - thus inductive thinkers freely admit that there is no limit to speculative explanations of observations
”
Speculative explanations are only limited by imagination. Scientific ones are limited in that they must accord with evidence and observation.
hence there is no limit to speculative explanations of observations

“
the "hardness" of physics goes out the window the more it relies on rationalistic logic to explain itself - thus the further you go in to rationalism, the slimmer and slimmer the consensus gets
(how many contending schools of thought are there on the topic of quantum mechanics?)
”
There is a scientific consensus about quantum mechanics, except perhaps at the leading edge of research. So, that's one school of thought, I guess.
the consensus lies at the point of observation - what those observations indicate is where things start to diverge - hence there is no limit to speculative explanations of observations

“
given that physics cannot indicate a SINGLE thing in the universe and say what it ultimately is, its not clear why you think it is superior
”
This is a wishy-washy attempt at obfuscation.
its a fact
despite claiming that you know so many things you can't even point to your nose and say what it ultimately is

The fact is, once again, you can't suggest any "superior" way to obtain the "ultimate" knowledge you think exists.
only for one who places there imperfect mind and senses on the platform of awe and reverence

“
humans that aren't driven by false ego which arises from placing one's fallible mind and senses on the altar of awe and reverence
”
Obviously, you don't believe your own propaganda, since scientists are human.
yes, humans that place their imperfect mind and senses of awe and reverence, which gives rise to a host of faults of character, such as envy, wrath, etc - all of which make the pursuit of absolute knowledge (such as pointing to your nose and saying what it ultimately is) futile

Just a simple question or two:

1) Why do you hate electrons so much?

2) Why do you denigrate and virtually blindly ignore the blatantly obvious success of science?

I'll tell you why. This thread is about nothing more than your own envy toward those scientists and engineers among us who actually understand the realities of nature while all you can seem to acheive is some impotent and abstract sense that there's something out there that you just don't quite get.

I feel for you.

yes, humans that place their imperfect mind and senses of awe and reverence, which gives rise to a host of faults of character, such as envy, wrath, etc - all of which make the pursuit of absolute knowledge (such as pointing to your nose and saying what it ultimately is) futile
And of course, you have a demonstrably better way. Well? Bring it on! What of any value can you say about the cosmos? What can you explain? What can you predict more accurately than the sciences? Human nature? Physics? Biology? Psychology? Neurology?

What have you got LG? C'mon. Bring your weapons to bear and show us!

Can scientific research expect to reach an end to all knowledge (eg - how the universe works and how life works) as long as egotism (pride, envy, etc) is cultivated amongst the practitioners?

Ego can be seen as a pro as well as a con.

lightgigantic:

The fact is, you have no such method

the fact is that it isn't defined as coming within the purview of the imperfect mind or the senses

I suggest you put up or shut up.

why not admit that you place the mind and senses on the platform of awe and reverence?

You use convoluted language. I find it difficult to agree or disagree with something so vague. Explain what you mean, then I'll tell you whether I agree or disagree with it.

To me, your statement sounds like you're claiming I worship "the mind and senses" in some kind of religious sense. If that is your claim, it is a false one.

so you want to argue that advances in the field of medicine have dramatically reduced wrath/envy/lust/etc in the world?

Most people don't have access to psychologists and psychiatrists, so I do not argue that.

you seem to be confused about what science can accomplish and what it cannot accomplish

Not at all. Show me something you can accomplish without using your mind or senses. Just one thing.

There is no "guessing" in the statistical theory of fermions.

but what this proves is a separate issue

It's a scientific theory. It proves nothing. You really need to learn what science is.

My guess is you haven't read Popper.

My guess is that rather than discuss the implications of a topic of discussion, you would rather split hairs over who is the smartest

I take that as an admission. You ought to go and read an introductory textbook on the history and philosophy of science, then get back to me.

So far the only thing we have to go for that the quote is taken out of context is that it doesn't tally with your value system

Obviously it is out of context, because you have provided no context for it.

Your quote contains somebody's idea of what Popper said or wrote, and not what he actually said or wrote. My advice is go to the source and you'll better avoid these pitfalls. (Note that I am not claiming the entire summary is incorrect - merely the parts of it I've pointed out above.)

The last statement here is completely false. There is no guarantee that any particular scientific theory will ever be proved false.

maybe you can name a particular scientific theory that you are convinced is such an example so we can examine the foundations for your claim

How many do you want? Examples:

The Earth orbits the Sun.
The Earth is between 4 and 5 billion years old.
Human beings and chimpanzees evolved from a common ancestor.
If the Greenland ice sheet melts, average sea levels will rise by up to 10 metres.
The electron has a mass of 9.1 times 10^-31 kilograms, to an accuracy of two significant figures.
The sky is blue due to the effects of Rayleigh scattering of sunlight.
Sound is a pressure wave in a medium.
All triangles in Euclidean geometry have internal angles that add to 180 degrees.
The orbit of Mars lies between the orbits of Earth and Jupiter.
There are no centaurs living on the surface of the Earth.


Its not clear why being at the foundation of science somehow makes it exempt from theory

Falsification is not the "foundation" of science, as I explained above.

Speculative explanations are only limited by imagination. Scientific ones are limited in that they must accord with evidence and observation.

hence there is no limit to speculative explanations of observations

What do you hope to gain by repeating my words back at me.

It appears we are in agreement. Imagination has no obvious limits. So what?

despite claiming that you know so many things you can't even point to your nose and say what it ultimately is

Like I said, this is just wishy-washy obfuscation. You need to define what you mean by what something "ultimately is". Otherwise, you can just shift the goal posts whenever anybody provides you with the "ultimate" truth you seek. You just say that's not the real ultimate, and go round the circle again.

What kind of ultimate do you want? Define it, precisely. Then we can talk.

yes, humans that place their imperfect mind and senses of awe and reverence, which gives rise to a host of faults of character, such as envy, wrath, etc - all of which make the pursuit of absolute knowledge (such as pointing to your nose and saying what it ultimately is) futile

Interesting. One moment you are demanding ultimate truths, and the next you claim they are unattainable. You are clearly confused and wrapping yourself in knots.

Can scientific research expect to reach an end to all knowledge (eg - how the universe works and how life works) as long as egotism (pride, envy, etc) is cultivated amongst the practitioners?

Ego can be seen as a pro as well as a con.
Is the human aspect of scientific endeavor any different from that of any other endeavor? Does one renounce their humanity to become a scientist? Do scientists check their egos and personalities at the lab door?

Get real. They are just people with the same drives and flaws as everyone else.

lightgigantic

Humans are flawed that is a given. So whatever they do they do it to only try to emulate what others are doing around them. If that's so bad, why do you want to condem them for just being human?

JamesR

The fact is, you have no such method
”
the fact is that it isn't defined as coming within the purview of the imperfect mind or the senses
”
I suggest you put up or shut up.
you want to argue that states of consciousness (eg- wrath/lust/envy) do not affect the conclusions drawn by our mind and senses?

“
why not admit that you place the mind and senses on the platform of awe and reverence?
”
You use convoluted language. I find it difficult to agree or disagree with something so vague. Explain what you mean, then I'll tell you whether I agree or disagree with it.

To me, your statement sounds like you're claiming I worship "the mind and senses" in some kind of religious sense. If that is your claim, it is a false one.
the precise words were "placed on the platform of awe and reverence" - the idea is that things we place on the platform of reverence are accepted as supreme and the ultimate authority

In this case, it is the mind and senses - IOW if one is of the opinion that information arrived at (either individually or by consensus) through the medium of the mind and senses is the final last word in discerning the absolute - such a person can be described as placing the mind and senses on the platform of awe and reverence

“
so you want to argue that advances in the field of medicine have dramatically reduced wrath/envy/lust/etc in the world?
”
Most people don't have access to psychologists and psychiatrists, so I do not argue that.
so what do you want to argue?
technology has made people more jovial?

“
you seem to be confused about what science can accomplish and what it cannot accomplish
”
Not at all. Show me something you can accomplish without using your mind or senses. Just one thing.
you miss the point
if you place the mind and senses on one side of the scales and the nature body of knowledge available in the universe on the other, which way do you think the scales would tip?

“

“
There is no "guessing" in the statistical theory of fermions.
”
but what this proves is a separate issue
”
It's a scientific theory. It proves nothing. You really need to learn what science is.
if you think there is no difference between a guess and a scientific observation, I could recommend the same for yoruself

“

“
My guess is you haven't read Popper.
”
My guess is that rather than discuss the implications of a topic of discussion, you would rather split hairs over who is the smartest
”
I take that as an admission. You ought to go and read an introductory textbook on the history and philosophy of science, then get back to me.
perhaps you could inspire such a move by suggesting how Popper's quote is taken out of context outside of your hearsay


“
So far the only thing we have to go for that the quote is taken out of context is that it doesn't tally with your value system
”
Obviously it is out of context, because you have provided no context for it.
Bryan Magee, Popper, 1973, p. 26.
satisfied?

Your quote contains somebody's idea of what Popper said or wrote, and not what he actually said or wrote. My advice is go to the source and you'll better avoid these pitfalls. (Note that I am not claiming the entire summary is incorrect - merely the parts of it I've pointed out above.)
and what?
you are privy to the "real" Popper?
(and somehow you are not merely "analyzing" Popper in a way inferior to a person who has published work in the field?)

Once again, if you want to argue that a statement is taken out of context, you have to provide something to challenge it other than unbridled skepticism

“
The last statement here is completely false. There is no guarantee that any particular scientific theory will ever be proved false.
”
maybe you can name a particular scientific theory that you are convinced is such an example so we can examine the foundations for your claim
”
How many do you want? Examples:

* The Earth orbits the Sun.
provided the universe is contingent

* The Earth is between 4 and 5 billion years old.
provided that radioactive isotopes are constant in all time, places and circumstances

* Human beings and chimpanzees evolved from a common ancestor.
Karl Popper disagrees
He challenges that evolution is not science at all. He argues that the theory can be neither proved nor disproved, because no one can go back in time to see what factually happened. All that can honestly be said from a purely scientific viewpoint is that fossils suggest such an explanation might exist.


* If the Greenland ice sheet melts, average sea levels will rise by up to 10 metres.
provided the universe is contingent

* The electron has a mass of 9.1 times 10^-31 kilograms, to an accuracy of two significant figures.
provided the universe is objective

* The sky is blue due to the effects of Rayleigh scattering of sunlight.
contingency again

* Sound is a pressure wave in a medium.
provided the universe is accessible

* All triangles in Euclidean geometry have internal angles that add to 180 degrees.
provided the universe is rational

* The orbit of Mars lies between the orbits of Earth and Jupiter.
more contingency plus provided the universe is unified

* There are no centaurs living on the surface of the Earth.
sorry - that's an absolute negative that suffers from reflexivity - the only thing you can say without shooting yourself in the foot is "I/we have no knowledge of centaurs living on the surface of the earth" - it may sound lame, but such is the limits of empiricism

“
Its not clear why being at the foundation of science somehow makes it exempt from theory
”
Falsification is not the "foundation" of science, as I explained above.
persons held as being credible in the field of scientific philosophy (such as Karl Popper - I suggest you read about him sometime - don't worry, he doesn't quote the vedas) disagree
In fact they hold that the notion of falsification is what separates the wheat from the chaff of anything scientific

At no stage are we able to prove that what we now know is true, and it is always possible that it will turn out to be false. Indeed, it is an elementary fact about the intellectual history of mankind that most of what has been known at one time or another has eventually turned out to be not the case. So it is a profound mistake to try to do what scientists and philosophers have almost always tried to do, namely prove the truth of a theory, or justify our belief in a theory, since this is to attempt the logically impossible.



“
Speculative explanations are only limited by imagination. Scientific ones are limited in that they must accord with evidence and observation.
”
hence there is no limit to speculative explanations of observations
”
What do you hope to gain by repeating my words back at me.
understanding the difference between the statements
"This indicates ...."
and
"This tends to suggest ...."

It appears we are in agreement. Imagination has no obvious limits. So what?
giving such imaginative ventures (it could be/it may be etc) the same status as evidenced occurrences (it has been shown, etc) is a fallacy

“
despite claiming that you know so many things you can't even point to your nose and say what it ultimately is
”
Like I said, this is just wishy-washy obfuscation. You need to define what you mean by what something "ultimately is". Otherwise, you can just shift the goal posts whenever anybody provides you with the "ultimate" truth you seek. You just say that's not the real ultimate, and go round the circle again.


What kind of ultimate do you want? Define it, precisely. Then we can talk.
Its quite simple
point to your nose and say what it is ultimately

its obvious that the reason you are balking is because you know that all you can do is reference other relative terms until you arrive at the unknown boundaries of the impenetrable microcosm - IOW when we get down to brass tacks, all your knowledge is relative.

Its common knowledge that relative things can not ultimately indicate anything - such is the embarrassment of empiricism


“
yes, humans that place their imperfect mind and senses of awe and reverence, which gives rise to a host of faults of character, such as envy, wrath, etc - all of which make the pursuit of absolute knowledge (such as pointing to your nose and saying what it ultimately is) futile
”
Interesting. One moment you are demanding ultimate truths, and the next you claim they are unattainable.
unattainable for a knowledge base that deals exclusively with relative terms, yes

You are clearly confused and wrapping yourself in knots.
just because empiricism has serious problems answering ultimate questions doesn't mean that everyone is in the same boat

Supe

Just a simple question or two:

1) Why do you hate electrons so much?
I don't
people who insist on taking analogies literally tend to rub me the wrong way however

2) Why do you denigrate and virtually blindly ignore the blatantly obvious success of science?
what is that success?

I'll tell you why. This thread is about nothing more than your own envy toward those scientists and engineers among us who actually understand the realities of nature
what are those realities of nature?
(abiogenesis? The absolute nature of the mind and senses?)

while all you can seem to acheive is some impotent and abstract sense that there's something out there that you just don't quite get.
abiogenesis and accepting the mind and senses as the final last word in the "knowable" strike me as the epitome of impotency

and as abstract notions, just ask an empiricist to point to their nose and tell you what it ultimately is

I feel for you.
truly you are a magnanimous soul

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
yes, humans that place their imperfect mind and senses of awe and reverence, which gives rise to a host of faults of character, such as envy, wrath, etc - all of which make the pursuit of absolute knowledge (such as pointing to your nose and saying what it ultimately is) futile
”
And of course, you have a demonstrably better way.
certainly

Well? Bring it on! What of any value can you say about the cosmos? What can you explain? What can you predict more accurately than the sciences? Human nature? Physics? Biology? Psychology? Neurology?

What have you got LG? C'mon. Bring your weapons to bear and show us!
well for a start, abiogenesis isn't on the cards
:D

Reiku
Can scientific research expect to reach an end to all knowledge (eg - how the universe works and how life works) as long as egotism (pride, envy, etc) is cultivated amongst the practitioners?

Ego can be seen as a pro as well as a con.
ego that sees oneself as the centre of the universe is a con
ego that sees itself as the insignificant servant of the cause of the universe is a pro
;)

lightgigantic

Humans are flawed that is a given. So whatever they do they do it to only try to emulate what others are doing around them. If that's so bad, why do you want to condem them for just being human?
the consciousness of the living entity is limited (as evidenced by the struggle with ignorance)
Its not clear why you put getting free from the pushings of envy on par with getting free from the inherent limitations of the living entity's consciousness

IOW what is the absolute requirement that we be envious?

Lightgigantic has posted on the interesting subject of just what science is looking for. He has mentioned that scientists don't normally expect to end up with the abstract "Truth."

Exactly. If that were even possible, it would mean that, in the end, if we did have it; then, there would no longer be any need for science. If there was ever such a thing as the absolute Truth, it could never be supersceeded or supplanted and would necessarily be accepted as such by everyone. In other words, everyone would think and believe absolutely the same!

We regard knowledge that is "obvious" as "the truth" for the sake of convenience. We also define things and make them "true" by definition, but all knowledge at the frontiers of science is merely MORE ACCURATE BELIEF than what we previously believed.

All this is because we are finite but live in an infinite universe. It is impossible for us to ever know everything about anything.

lightgigantic:

Your last post to me was mostly waffle. I think you've lost track of what your substantive point was (if you had one) in this thread.

I have asked you several times to suggest a method for gaining knowledge that is in any way superior to the scientific method, and you have refused to do so, for the simple reason that you cannot do so.

You point to some well-recognised limitations on knowledge of any type (not only scientific) and pretend that they indicate a failure of science.

What you need to do, if you want to overthrow science as the pre-eminent method of gaining useful knowledge about the world, is suggest something better. Failing that, you're just full of hot air.

you want to argue that states of consciousness (eg- wrath/lust/envy) do not affect the conclusions drawn by our mind and senses?

No. I do not. It's irrelevant.

the precise words were "placed on the platform of awe and reverence" - the idea is that things we place on the platform of reverence are accepted as supreme and the ultimate authority

In this case, it is the mind and senses - IOW if one is of the opinion that information arrived at (either individually or by consensus) through the medium of the mind and senses is the final last word in discerning the absolute - such a person can be described as placing the mind and senses on the platform of awe and reverence

You toss around words like "the ultimate" and "the absolute" as if they mean something. Yet you never explain what it would mean to "discern the absolute", or explain how one might proceed in order to do that.

Show me something you can accomplish without using your mind or senses. Just one thing.

you miss the point
if you place the mind and senses on one side of the scales and the nature body of knowledge available in the universe on the other, which way do you think the scales would tip?

You're trying to compare apples and oranges here, to the extent that I can extract any meaning at all from what you've written.

if you think there is no difference between a guess and a scientific observation, I could recommend the same for yoruself

I thought that was what you were claiming.

Obviously it is out of context, because you have provided no context for it.

Bryan Magee, Popper, 1973, p. 26.
satisfied?

No. I asked for context, not a reference. But never mind. Since you haven't read Popper, I can't really expect you to be able to put his views into context. Let's leave it, shall we?

and what?
you are privy to the "real" Popper?

Sure. Anybody can read Popper. In context.

maybe you can name a particular scientific theory that you are convinced is such an example so we can examine the foundations for your claim [that there are some theories that are unlikely to be proved wrong].

How many do you want? Examples:
* The Earth orbits the Sun.

provided the universe is contingent

This is irrelevant to my contention that the claim that the Earth orbits the sun is likely never to be proved wrong.

* The Earth is between 4 and 5 billion years old.

provided that radioactive isotopes are constant in all time, places and circumstances

Again, irrelevant.

* Human beings and chimpanzees evolved from a common ancestor.

Karl Popper disagrees
He challenges that evolution is not science at all. He argues that the theory can be neither proved nor disproved, because no one can go back in time to see what factually happened. All that can honestly be said from a purely scientific viewpoint is that fossils suggest such an explanation might exist.

First, I do not believe that Popper regards evolutionary theory as non-science. But, on the off-chance that your claim is actually correct and he does believe that, then he is simply wrong.

I think the most likely thing here is that you've taken him out of context again.

* If the Greenland ice sheet melts, average sea levels will rise by up to 10 metres.

provided the universe is contingent

Irrelevant.

* The electron has a mass of 9.1 times 10^-31 kilograms, to an accuracy of two significant figures.

provided the universe is objective

Irrelevant.

* The sky is blue due to the effects of Rayleigh scattering of sunlight.

contingency again

Irrelevant again.

* Sound is a pressure wave in a medium.

provided the universe is accessible

Can you see a pattern yet? I'll skip the rest.

My claim that there are certain scientific facts that are unlikely ever to be proved false remains intact.

Falsification is not the "foundation" of science, as I explained above.

persons held as being credible in the field of scientific philosophy (such as Karl Popper - I suggest you read about him sometime - don't worry, he doesn't quote the vedas) disagree
In fact they hold that the notion of falsification is what separates the wheat from the chaff of anything scientific

As I explained, Popper's aim was to delimit science from non-science, not to provide a foundation for science. Falsificationism is not the foundation of science.

giving such imaginative ventures (it could be/it may be etc) the same status as evidenced occurrences (it has been shown, etc) is a fallacy

We already agreed on that, did we not?

Like I said, this is just wishy-washy obfuscation. You need to define what you mean by what something "ultimately is". Otherwise, you can just shift the goal posts whenever anybody provides you with the "ultimate" truth you seek. You just say that's not the real ultimate, and go round the circle again.

What kind of ultimate do you want? Define it, precisely. Then we can talk.

Its quite simple
point to your nose and say what it is ultimately

You did not answer my question. You merely repeated your previous claim.

Try again.

its obvious that the reason you are balking is because you know that all you can do is reference other relative terms until you arrive at the unknown boundaries of the impenetrable microcosm - IOW when we get down to brass tacks, all your knowledge is relative.

Interesting. A moment ago you were claiming there exists an "ultimate" in knowledge.

You're tying yourself in logical knots. And you do it again here:

Interesting. One moment you are demanding ultimate truths, and the next you claim they are unattainable.

unattainable for a knowledge base that deals exclusively with relative terms, yes

So, which is it? Are there ultimate truths, or aren't there? And if they are, can you suggest any way at all to get at them, or is that goal forever unattainable in your opinion?

Please try a straight answer this time.

JamesR

Your last post to me was mostly waffle. I think you've lost track of what your substantive point was (if you had one) in this thread.

I have asked you several times to suggest a method for gaining knowledge that is in any way superior to the scientific method, and you have refused to do so, for the simple reason that you cannot do so.

You point to some well-recognised limitations on knowledge of any type (not only scientific) and pretend that they indicate a failure of science.

What you need to do, if you want to overthrow science as the pre-eminent method of gaining useful knowledge about the world, is suggest something better. Failing that, you're just full of hot air.

“
you want to argue that states of consciousness (eg- wrath/lust/envy) do not affect the conclusions drawn by our mind and senses?
”
No. I do not. It's irrelevant.
then in answer to the general mood of your opening inquiry, that knowledge that deals with issues of consciousness (lust/wrath/envy etc) is superior to that type of knowledge that deals with mere observations of sight/hearing/touch etc (since such phenomenal investigation is deeply dyed by the consciousness that charges it)

“
the precise words were "placed on the platform of awe and reverence" - the idea is that things we place on the platform of reverence are accepted as supreme and the ultimate authority

In this case, it is the mind and senses - IOW if one is of the opinion that information arrived at (either individually or by consensus) through the medium of the mind and senses is the final last word in discerning the absolute - such a person can be described as placing the mind and senses on the platform of awe and reverence
”
You toss around words like "the ultimate" and "the absolute" as if they mean something.
its not clear how anyone who is making a claim (any claim) about the nature of truth or falsity (or correctness or incorrectness) can do so without involving ultimate and absolute issues

Yet you never explain what it would mean to "discern the absolute", or explain how one might proceed in order to do that.
if you examine any empiricist/rationalist claim, you will see that the absolute authority is the mind and/or senses - for instance saying water does not boil at 100 degrees can be accepted as true by such persons if it can been seen to be so or if a reason can be given for it to be so - at the foundation of such claims are the senses (in terms of "centigrade") or the collective knowledge of how things could be expected to behave (according to what we have gleaned from our senses) - these two things form the "complete" picture (or absolute) for discussion by an empiricist/rationalist, despite the glaring fact that it wouldn't be realistic for the complete picture to ever come within the purview of such limited facilities

“

“
Show me something you can accomplish without using your mind or senses. Just one thing.
”
you miss the point
if you place the mind and senses on one side of the scales and the nature body of knowledge available in the universe on the other, which way do you think the scales would tip?
”
You're trying to compare apples and oranges here, to the extent that I can extract any meaning at all from what you've written.
the suggestion is that there are means (and subjects) of higher knowledge - you can use you senses to observe the effects of envy - you can use your mind to think about the nature of envy - but such seeing and thinking is not sufficient to address the issue of envy (surmounting our powers of logic and reasoning is not difficult for a state of consciousness like envy)

“
if you think there is no difference between a guess and a scientific observation, I could recommend the same for yoruself
”
I thought that was what you were claiming.
guessing that electrons are indistinguishable stands some distance apart from an observation to the same standard

“

“
Obviously it is out of context, because you have provided no context for it.
”
Bryan Magee, Popper, 1973, p. 26.
satisfied?
”
No. I asked for context, not a reference. But never mind. Since you haven't read Popper, I can't really expect you to be able to put his views into context. Let's leave it, shall we?



an easy way to establish that it was taken out of context would be to disclaim the context it was presented in

At no stage are we able to prove that what we now know is true, and it is always possible that it will turn out to be false. Indeed, it is an elementary fact about the intellectual history of mankind that most of what has been known at one time or another has eventually turned out to be not the case. So it is a profound mistake to try to do what scientists and philosophers have almost always tried to do, namely prove the truth of a theory, or justify our belief in a theory, since this is to attempt the logically impossible.

Why don't yo try and prove that what you know is true without venturing into critical reflexivity?



“
and what?
you are privy to the "real" Popper?
”
Sure. Anybody can read Popper. In context.
anyone except persons who have value systems that are in conflict with yours, so it seems .....
:shrug:

“

“
Originally Posted by LG
maybe you can name a particular scientific theory that you are convinced is such an example so we can examine the foundations for your claim [that there are some theories that are unlikely to be proved wrong].
”
“
Originally Posted by JR
How many do you want? Examples:
* The Earth orbits the Sun.
”
provided the universe is contingent
”
This is irrelevant to my contention that the claim that the Earth orbits the sun is likely never to be proved wrong.
if the universe is revealed to be contingent in ways that we don't yet understand it can very easily be proved wrong

“
* The Earth is between 4 and 5 billion years old.

provided that radioactive isotopes are constant in all time, places and circumstances
”
Again, irrelevant.
no, not at all
Guessing the age of the Earth is fully dependent on ideas of contingency

“
* Human beings and chimpanzees evolved from a common ancestor.

Karl Popper disagrees
He challenges that evolution is not science at all. He argues that the theory can be neither proved nor disproved, because no one can go back in time to see what factually happened. All that can honestly be said from a purely scientific viewpoint is that fossils suggest such an explanation might exist.
”
First, I do not believe that Popper regards evolutionary theory as non-science.
then I guess you don't know Popper after all

But, on the off-chance that your claim is actually correct and he does believe that, then he is simply wrong.
the reason he argues that it is not science is because evolution can not be falsified (IOW its a guess, and strictly speaking - according to Popper anyway - guesses are not science)

I think the most likely thing here is that you've taken him out of context again.
:shrug:
“
* If the Greenland ice sheet melts, average sea levels will rise by up to 10 metres.

provided the universe is contingent
”
Irrelevant.
once again, you are wrong
predictions on such things are purely based on ideas of contingency

“
* The electron has a mass of 9.1 times 10^-31 kilograms, to an accuracy of two significant figures.

provided the universe is objective
”
Irrelevant.
if current understandings of the objective nature of electrons were to be revised, there wouldn't be a scope for revision?

“
* The sky is blue due to the effects of Rayleigh scattering of sunlight.

contingency again
”
Irrelevant again.
ditto above

“
* Sound is a pressure wave in a medium.

provided the universe is accessible
”
Can you see a pattern yet?
yes, you are taking the view that empirical claims are absolute - kind of strange since the foundations for empiricism (the objectivity, contingency etc of the universe) are constantly being revised by the advancement of empiricism



My claim that there are certain scientific facts that are unlikely ever to be proved false remains intact.
the only way for your statement to be true would be if empiricism has exhausted its inquiry into issues of the objective, contingent, etc nature of the universe

Do you think this is the case?

“

“
Falsification is not the "foundation" of science, as I explained above.
”
persons held as being credible in the field of scientific philosophy (such as Karl Popper - I suggest you read about him sometime - don't worry, he doesn't quote the vedas) disagree
In fact they hold that the notion of falsification is what separates the wheat from the chaff of anything scientific
”
As I explained, Popper's aim was to delimit science from non-science, not to provide a foundation for science. Falsificationism is not the foundation of science.
its not clear how issues that segregate science from non-science are not foundational
“
giving such imaginative ventures (it could be/it may be etc) the same status as evidenced occurrences (it has been shown, etc) is a fallacy
”
We already agreed on that, did we not?
its not clear
given this discussion, it appears you are in conflict with the issue

“

“
Like I said, this is just wishy-washy obfuscation. You need to define what you mean by what something "ultimately is". Otherwise, you can just shift the goal posts whenever anybody provides you with the "ultimate" truth you seek. You just say that's not the real ultimate, and go round the circle again.

What kind of ultimate do you want? Define it, precisely. Then we can talk.
”
Its quite simple
point to your nose and say what it is ultimately
”
You did not answer my question. You merely repeated your previous claim.

Try again.
Quite simple
Just like you accept the mind and senses as the ultimate (final last word/foundation of all foundations/complete description) in discerning knowledge, what is your nose ultimately?
“
its obvious that the reason you are balking is because you know that all you can do is reference other relative terms until you arrive at the unknown boundaries of the impenetrable microcosm - IOW when we get down to brass tacks, all your knowledge is relative.
”
Interesting. A moment ago you were claiming there exists an "ultimate" in knowledge.
You didn't notice how it was all in second person?

You're tying yourself in logical knots. And you do it again here:

“

“
Interesting. One moment you are demanding ultimate truths, and the next you claim they are unattainable.
”
unattainable for a knowledge base that deals exclusively with relative terms, yes
”
So, which is it? Are there ultimate truths, or aren't there?
certainly
even in terms of empiricism, it is very specific about which claims are to be accepted and which claims are not (hence there must be an "ultimate" issue there)

And if they are, can you suggest any way at all to get at them, or is that goal forever unattainable in your opinion?
For as long as one is struggling with the issues presented in the OP, it is forever unattainable (namely because envy, etc is a symptom of accepting the mind and senses as the "ultimate" last word in knowledge - and as exemplified by your inability to say what your nose "ultimately" is, there is no "ultimate" knowledge)

lightgigantic:

We don't appear to be making any progress here, and this is just one of a series of 5 or 6 threads you decided to start simultaneously on what is essentially one issue. I'm beginning to think you're too confused about matters and unsure of what science is to actually be able to conduct a sensible discussion at the current time.

For example, I have asked you a straight question several times:

What you need to do, if you want to overthrow science as the pre-eminent method of gaining useful knowledge about the world, is suggest something better. Failing that, you're just full of hot air.

You most recent attempt at a response was this:

you want to argue that states of consciousness (eg- wrath/lust/envy) do not affect the conclusions drawn by our mind and senses?

You don't even attempt an answer. Instead, you just ask an irrelevant question.

I'll give you one more try before I give up on you.

then in answer to the general mood of your opening inquiry, that knowledge that deals with issues of consciousness (lust/wrath/envy etc) is superior to that type of knowledge that deals with mere observations of sight/hearing/touch etc (since such phenomenal investigation is deeply dyed by the consciousness that charges it)

This statement, like many of your other statements, is difficult to parse in order to extract meaning from it. I would summarise it, without the extraneous verbiage, as something like this:

"knowledge that deals with mind (i.e. feelings, thoughts etc.) is superior to knowledge that deals with the external world (i.e. everything perceivable by the senses)."

I assume this is your central claim and belief.

This raises a few questions. For a start:

1. Define "knowledge".
2. How can one type of knowledge be "superior" to another?
3. How can one get knowledge of mind without using the senses?
4. How would one go about verifying the accuracy and objectivity of knowledge obtained by means other than the senses?

You toss around words like "the ultimate" and "the absolute" as if they mean something.

its not clear how anyone who is making a claim (any claim) about the nature of truth or falsity (or correctness or incorrectness) can do so without involving ultimate and absolute issues

Ok. Then, since you are making all the claims about the nature of truth here, you can define "ultimate". So, go ahead.

if you examine any empiricist/rationalist claim, you will see that the absolute authority is the mind and/or senses - for instance saying water does not boil at 100 degrees can be accepted as true by such persons if it can been seen to be so or if a reason can be given for it to be so - at the foundation of such claims are the senses (in terms of "centigrade") or the collective knowledge of how things could be expected to behave (according to what we have gleaned from our senses) - these two things form the "complete" picture (or absolute) for discussion by an empiricist/rationalist, despite the glaring fact that it wouldn't be realistic for the complete picture to ever come within the purview of such limited facilities

The observation that water boils at 100 degrees Celcius is certainly an empirical one. I have no idea what you mean when you say this is an "incomplete picture". What is required to complete it, in your view?

the suggestion is that there are means (and subjects) of higher knowledge - you can use you senses to observe the effects of envy - you can use your mind to think about the nature of envy - but such seeing and thinking is not sufficient to address the issue of envy (surmounting our powers of logic and reasoning is not difficult for a state of consciousness like envy)

I can't imagine how you plan to address the "issue of envy" without using your mind or senses. And what is this unidentifible "issue", anyway?

guessing that electrons are indistinguishable stands some distance apart from an observation to the same standard

Correct. So, we're still in agreement on that.

At no stage are we able to prove that what we now know is true, and it is always possible that it will turn out to be false.

Possible, but unlikely in some cases, such as the examples I gave above.

Indeed, it is an elementary fact about the intellectual history of mankind that most of what has been known at one time or another has eventually turned out to be not the case.

That "most" is a big claim. Mostly, this is Popperian rhetoric, to make his point about falsificationism.

So it is a profound mistake to try to do what scientists and philosophers have almost always tried to do, namely prove the truth of a theory, or justify our belief in a theory, since this is to attempt the logically impossible.

Popper says nothing new here. No scientists believes that scientific proof is the same as mathematical proof. Any scientist would agree that there is no "absolute" proof in science. All we have is better or worse explanations of how the natural world works, based in evidence.

if the universe is revealed to be contingent in ways that we don't yet understand it can very easily be proved wrong
Guessing the age of the Earth is fully dependent on ideas of contingency
predictions on such things are purely based on ideas of contingency

If the universe suddenly ceases to be governed by discernable laws, then everything we know might then become wrong. Merry-go-rounds might start falling from the sky like rain. All elephants might turn blue with yellow spots. Fathers might bear children instead of mothers. The chances of any of these things occurring? Practically zero.

Therefore, my original statement stands: there are certain scientific facts that will likely never turn out to be false.

You ignorance of probability and therefore misunderstanding of my statement makes no difference.

yes, you are taking the view that empirical claims are absolute - kind of strange since the foundations for empiricism (the objectivity, contingency etc of the universe) are constantly being revised by the advancement of empiricism

I never claimed that empiricism was absolute, since we have not yet agreed on a definition of "absolute". You have yet to suggest one.

the only way for your statement to be true would be if empiricism has exhausted its inquiry into issues of the objective, contingent, etc nature of the universe

Do you think this is the case?

I'm unsure what you mean by "contingent". Contingency usually means one thing depends on another, and it is usually tied to causation. The way you use the word, though, could well be entirely different.

As for objectivity, empiricism is based on the idea that objective observations can be made of the universe. If that were not true, then empiricism would be useless as a method for obtaining any knowledge at all. Yet, your computer exists. Hence, empiricism works. Hence, there are at least some things that are objectively true about the universe for all people at all times.

As I explained, Popper's aim was to delimit science from non-science, not to provide a foundation for science. Falsificationism is not the foundation of science.

its not clear how issues that segregate science from non-science are not foundational

Popper's falsificationism was meant to be foundational for a philosophy of science, not for science itself. Falsificationism is not a scientific theory, it is a theory about science itself. As such, it is a meta-theory. It sits "outside the system", as it were. And therefore, it cannot be a foundation of science.

Does that make things clearer for you?

Quite simple
Just like you accept the mind and senses as the ultimate (final last word/foundation of all foundations/complete description) in discerning knowledge, what is your nose ultimately?

This is a waste of my time. Why don't you tell me? Who knows? We might even get an answer to the question of "ultimate" out of you, in passing.

Interesting. One moment you are demanding ultimate truths, and the next you claim they are unattainable.

unattainable for a knowledge base that deals exclusively with relative terms, yes

To summarise then: you believe there are no ultimate truths.

JamesR

We don't appear to be making any progress here, and this is just one of a series of 5 or 6 threads you decided to start simultaneously on what is essentially one issue.
really?
what is that one issue?


I'm beginning to think you're too confused about matters and unsure of what science is to actually be able to conduct a sensible discussion at the current time.

For example, I have asked you a straight question several times:

“
What you need to do, if you want to overthrow science as the pre-eminent method of gaining useful knowledge about the world, is suggest something better. Failing that, you're just full of hot air.
”
You most recent attempt at a response was this:

“
you want to argue that states of consciousness (eg- wrath/lust/envy) do not affect the conclusions drawn by our mind and senses?
”
You don't even attempt an answer. Instead, you just ask an irrelevant question.

I'll give you one more try before I give up on you.
I would have thought it was quite clear
states of consciousness (envy for eg) affect the information that we gather through our mind and senses - therefore gathering a information about "the world" faces severe issues if one neglects the consideration of consciousness

“
then in answer to the general mood of your opening inquiry, that knowledge that deals with issues of consciousness (lust/wrath/envy etc) is superior to that type of knowledge that deals with mere observations of sight/hearing/touch etc (since such phenomenal investigation is deeply dyed by the consciousness that charges it)
”
This statement, like many of your other statements, is difficult to parse in order to extract meaning from it. I would summarise it, without the extraneous verbiage, as something like this:

"knowledge that deals with mind (i.e. feelings, thoughts etc.) is superior to knowledge that deals with the external world (i.e. everything perceivable by the senses)."
actually knowledge that deals with the consciousness ("what I am") is superior to that knowledge that deals with the mind and so forth - for instance if one is of the notion that ultimately "I am this body" that will seriously affect what information they garner form the mind and senses

I assume this is your central claim and belief.

This raises a few questions. For a start:

1. Define "knowledge".
basically it boils down to issues of relationship or contingency


2. How can one type of knowledge be "superior" to another?
by the result it offers (which precludes issues of value)
for instance if we were discussing that knowledge that can result in making the most money (as the value), knowledge on how to make $1000 is superior to knowledge how to make $100

3. How can one get knowledge of mind without using the senses?
I am not sure in what understanding you are using these words - for instance one cannot get knowledge of the senses without the mind, and one cannot get knowledge from the mind without consciousness - IOW the root cause of all knowledge is the "I"

4. How would one go about verifying the accuracy and objectivity of knowledge obtained by means other than the senses?
I am not sure in what sense you are using the words "accurate" and "objective" since, as clearly indicated in several other threads, there is no clear means for asserting such a stance with empiricism or rationalism

“

“
You toss around words like "the ultimate" and "the absolute" as if they mean something.
”
its not clear how anyone who is making a claim (any claim) about the nature of truth or falsity (or correctness or incorrectness) can do so without involving ultimate and absolute issues
”
Ok. Then, since you are making all the claims about the nature of truth here, you can define "ultimate". So, go ahead.
its quite easy - "ultimate" indicates either the foundation or conclusion - for instance the ultimate foundation of empiricism is the senses (therefore it has no scope for issues beyond such a foundation) - this leads to the ultimate conclusion of empiricism - namely that it cannot indicate anything ultimate since it relies on tacit definitions (IOW it is contingent on ignorance or always existing in the medium of mesocosm, with no entrance past issues of micro or macrocosm)

“
if you examine any empiricist/rationalist claim, you will see that the absolute authority is the mind and/or senses - for instance saying water does not boil at 100 degrees can be accepted as true by such persons if it can been seen to be so or if a reason can be given for it to be so - at the foundation of such claims are the senses (in terms of "centigrade") or the collective knowledge of how things could be expected to behave (according to what we have gleaned from our senses) - these two things form the "complete" picture (or absolute) for discussion by an empiricist/rationalist, despite the glaring fact that it wouldn't be realistic for the complete picture to ever come within the purview of such limited facilities
”
The observation that water boils at 100 degrees Celcius is certainly an empirical one. I have no idea what you mean when you say this is an "incomplete picture". What is required to complete it, in your view?
It is incomplete because our mind (how we expect things to work) and senses (what we see working) are incomplete - For instance water is not "observed" to boil at 100 degrees celcius - it works out as something slightly less - and even then it gives slightly different readings according to the vessel it is boiled in, environment, altitude, etc - but for the sake of convenience we say "water boils at 100 degrees" in the mood of "near enough is good enough" (ie the mood of "incompleteness")
complete knowledge involves issues of consciousness, which would get back to issues of values (such as what is the purpose of this world that we are so desperate to control)

“
the suggestion is that there are means (and subjects) of higher knowledge - you can use you senses to observe the effects of envy - you can use your mind to think about the nature of envy - but such seeing and thinking is not sufficient to address the issue of envy (surmounting our powers of logic and reasoning is not difficult for a state of consciousness like envy)
”
I can't imagine how you plan to address the "issue of envy" without using your mind or senses. And what is this unidentifible "issue", anyway?
I stated that the mind and senses can not "deal' with the issue of envy - IOW its the nature of being in a polluted state of consciousness (eg - envy) that one cannot identify it - IOW in an envious state it feels "good" or "correct" to be envious (even though we may be able to see things more clearly in retrospect)

“
guessing that electrons are indistinguishable stands some distance apart from an observation to the same standard
”
Correct. So, we're still in agreement on that.
hence it a fallacy to grant a guess in science the same status as an observation in science
(IOW our logical conclusions on what the evidence suggests stands distinct from the evidence)

“
At no stage are we able to prove that what we now know is true, and it is always possible that it will turn out to be false.
”
Possible, but unlikely in some cases, such as the examples I gave above.
assuming that current understandings of contingency are absolute (given that they were arrived at through the mind and senses, it will always remain "possible")

“
Indeed, it is an elementary fact about the intellectual history of mankind that most of what has been known at one time or another has eventually turned out to be not the case.
”
That "most" is a big claim. Mostly, this is Popperian rhetoric, to make his point about falsificationism.
assuming that empiricism and rationalism is without its own inherent rhetoric

“
So it is a profound mistake to try to do what scientists and philosophers have almost always tried to do, namely prove the truth of a theory, or justify our belief in a theory, since this is to attempt the logically impossible.
”
Popper says nothing new here. No scientists believes that scientific proof is the same as mathematical proof. Any scientist would agree that there is no "absolute" proof in science. All we have is better or worse explanations of how the natural world works, based in evidence.
then it appears your statements don't corroborate with science as a whole, which is jam packed with attempts to prove and justify theories - like for instance the high resolution images from the Hubble telescope - does it indicate we should patch up the theory of the Big Bang or scrap it and work with a different one?
the controversy still rages today ....

“
if the universe is revealed to be contingent in ways that we don't yet understand it can very easily be proved wrong
”
“
Guessing the age of the Earth is fully dependent on ideas of contingency
”
“
predictions on such things are purely based on ideas of contingency
”
If the universe suddenly ceases to be governed by discernable laws, then everything we know might then become wrong. Merry-go-rounds might start falling from the sky like rain. All elephants might turn blue with yellow spots. Fathers might bear children instead of mothers. The chances of any of these things occurring? Practically zero.
the reason these things are practically zero is because they all fall neatly within our sense perception - the relationships between celestial bodies, the age of planets, etc are not based on experience but on understandings or concepts - as an example, just see how much the "hubble constant" has been reworked

Therefore, my original statement stands: there are certain scientific facts that will likely never turn out to be false.
yes, provided the current understandings of contingency remain intact - for instant imagine the effect it would have on astronomy if it was discovered that the speed of light was not a constant in certain situations

You ignorance of probability and therefore misunderstanding of my statement makes no difference.
since calculations arrived at through empirical and rational processes cannot eliminate misunderstanding and ignorance, its not how you can lay claim to the probable
(What is the probability that the speed of light is an absolute constant - the only answer you can give is in relation to your consciousness - IOW how you would personally feel at the prospect of astronomy being totally turned on its head - which I imagine is something close to nausea - hence your likely answer would be something seasoned with polluted consciousness (sarcasm, ad hom, derision etc) - which again gets back to issues of envy)

“
yes, you are taking the view that empirical claims are absolute - kind of strange since the foundations for empiricism (the objectivity, contingency etc of the universe) are constantly being revised by the advancement of empiricism
”
I never claimed that empiricism was absolute, since we have not yet agreed on a definition of "absolute". You have yet to suggest one.
you are using words to the same effect - you deems some things indubitable (the age of earth for instance) - why? Because you hold the issues of contingency that they ride as indubitable - why? Because you hold the means used to arrive at such understandings as indubitable (aka - empiricism) - No prizes for guessing what is the "absolute" in empiricism ....

“
the only way for your statement to be true would be if empiricism has exhausted its inquiry into issues of the objective, contingent, etc nature of the universe

Do you think this is the case?
”
I'm unsure what you mean by "contingent". Contingency usually means one thing depends on another, and it is usually tied to causation. The way you use the word, though, could well be entirely different.
that's precisely the sense that I used it in
Do you think that empiricism has exhausted the issues of contingency?

As for objectivity, empiricism is based on the idea that objective observations can be made of the universe. If that were not true, then empiricism would be useless as a method for obtaining any knowledge at all. Yet, your computer exists. Hence, empiricism works. Hence, there are at least some things that are objectively true about the universe for all people at all times.
only provided the issues of contingency also remain in tact - IOW all you can talk of is your experience in the present circumstances - to extend that to all places and to all times is an assumption (an assumption you cannot falsify)

“

“
As I explained, Popper's aim was to delimit science from non-science, not to provide a foundation for science. Falsificationism is not the foundation of science.
”
its not clear how issues that segregate science from non-science are not foundational
”
Popper's falsificationism was meant to be foundational for a philosophy of science, not for science itself.
truly perplexing
How on earth do you separate science from issues of philosophy?

Falsificationism is not a scientific theory, it is a theory about science itself. As such, it is a meta-theory. It sits "outside the system", as it were. And therefore, it cannot be a foundation of science.

Does that make things clearer for you?
Not really
It just begs the question what theory you would work with in its absence
IOW science cannot operate as a system without a philosophy

“
Quite simple
Just like you accept the mind and senses as the ultimate (final last word/foundation of all foundations/complete description) in discerning knowledge, what is your nose ultimately?
”
This is a waste of my time. Why don't you tell me? Who knows? We might even get an answer to the question of "ultimate" out of you, in passing.
I am quite sure you are aware that empiricism cannot offer anything objective - all it can indicate are a series of subjective categories which eventually reach a blank in the microcosm
IOW if you point to your nose you can say it is matter, but you can't answer what matter is, so all we are left with is a network of relative terms (nothing ultimate)

“

“
Interesting. One moment you are demanding ultimate truths, and the next you claim they are unattainable.
”
unattainable for a knowledge base that deals exclusively with relative terms, yes
”
To summarise then: you believe there are no ultimate truths.
There are no ultimate truths in empiricism (or rationalism either for that matter)
If you can't point to your nose and say what it ultimately is its not so much an issue of belief but one of evidence

lightgigantic:

You know, I think I half agree with you. But, at the same time, I don't think you're saying anything very interesting or useful - nothing that will help science, anyway.

Your point seems to be that no observer is completely separate from his observation, because his consciousness is always necessarily involved in the process. Hence, no science is entirely objective, because all scientific conclusions are arrived at by conscious beings. This is not news to scientists.

What you appear to miss is that there are many separate consciousnesses involved in assembling scientific knowledge. So, while each one probably has a slightly different view of the world, they attain a consensus about the world external to any individual. And that is what gives science its objectivity. Observations, theories and conclusions in science are all testable, repeatable, checkable by other people. There is no individual revelation required, as in religion.

actually knowledge that deals with the consciousness ("what I am") is superior to that knowledge that deals with the mind and so forth - for instance if one is of the notion that ultimately "I am this body" that will seriously affect what information they garner form the mind and senses

And what happens when 1000 people compare notes on some phenomenon?

I am not sure in what understanding you are using these words - for instance one cannot get knowledge of the senses without the mind, and one cannot get knowledge from the mind without consciousness - IOW the root cause of all knowledge is the "I"

Do you subscribe to a Cartesian dualism (or tri-ism) then? Consciousness is separate from mind which is separate from body? If so, why?

its quite easy - "ultimate" indicates either the foundation or conclusion - for instance the ultimate foundation of empiricism is the senses (therefore it has no scope for issues beyond such a foundation) - this leads to the ultimate conclusion of empiricism - namely that it cannot indicate anything ultimate since it relies on tacit definitions...

This is where I can agree with you. I don't think empiricism can ever attain the kind of "ultimate" you're looking for.

But then, neither can anything else.

if you examine any empiricist/rationalist claim, you will see that the absolute authority is the mind and/or senses - for instance saying water does not boil at 100 degrees can be accepted as true by such persons if it can been seen to be so or if a reason can be given for it to be so - at the foundation of such claims are the senses (in terms of "centigrade") or the collective knowledge of how things could be expected to behave (according to what we have gleaned from our senses) - these two things form the "complete" picture (or absolute) for discussion by an empiricist/rationalist, despite the glaring fact that it wouldn't be realistic for the complete picture to ever come within the purview of such limited facilities

It is not the aim of science to define a concept such as "temperature" in the kind of "ultimate" sense you are talking about. The concept is a tool for saying something meaningful about the world. It lets us state objective facts in a precise way.

If you think "temperature" has an "ultimate" truth beyond the definition that physicists have given it, then I have no idea how you reach that conclusion in any logical fashion.

For instance water is not "observed" to boil at 100 degrees celcius - it works out as something slightly less - and even then it gives slightly different readings according to the vessel it is boiled in, environment, altitude, etc - but for the sake of convenience we say "water boils at 100 degrees" in the mood of "near enough is good enough" (ie the mood of "incompleteness")
complete knowledge involves issues of consciousness, which would get back to issues of values (such as what is the purpose of this world that we are so desperate to control)

This is more about use of language than any "ultimate" meaning. When we say that water boils at 100 degrees, it is implicit that the observation is made under what physicists call "standard conditions" - a given atmospheric pressure, for example. The sloppy use of language where we do not specify all relevant conditions doesn't mean that such conditions cannot be specified.

The fact is, the statement that water boils at 100 degrees Celcius under certain conditions can be made as precise as you want.

hence it a fallacy to grant a guess in science the same status as an observation in science
(IOW our logical conclusions on what the evidence suggests stands distinct from the evidence)

Yes. I agree. Again.

then it appears your statements don't corroborate with science as a whole, which is jam packed with attempts to prove and justify theories...

Interestingly, Popper (your favorite philosopher of science) claims that science is jam packed with attempts to falsify theories. ;)

Whichever way you look at them, they are the same experiments.

(What is the probability that the speed of light is an absolute constant - the only answer you can give is in relation to your consciousness - IOW how you would personally feel at the prospect of astronomy being totally turned on its head - which I imagine is something close to nausea - hence your likely answer would be something seasoned with polluted consciousness (sarcasm, ad hom, derision etc) - which again gets back to issues of envy)

In fact, the only way I can estimate the probability that the speed of light is constant is with reference to existing knowledge of physics, and make a personal assessment of how likely it is that major aspects of current physics will be overturned some time in the future. Such a task is very difficult. This is why you probably won't find any papers trying to assess this probability.

The best any physicist can say is that the preponderance of available observations appears to support the view that the speed of light is constant and has been constant since the big bang. We might note that not every experiment that has looked into the question has reached that conclusion, but by far the majority have.

But again, in the absence of physics, I don't see how you can hope to get a better answer than the one physics tells you. Certainly, looking introspectively deep into your private consciousness is unlikely to be any more reliable than drawing on knowledge of physics. In fact, I'd say it would be little better than guessing.

Do you think that empiricism has exhausted the issues of contingency?

Empiricism requires contingency. One thing follows another. One thing is caused by another. In the absence of causation, there can be no science.

Popper's falsificationism was meant to be foundational for a philosophy of science, not for science itself.

truly perplexing
How on earth do you separate science from issues of philosophy?

They are generally recognised as separate fields of enquiry. Look at any encyclopedia under the headings "science" and "philosophy".

IOW science cannot operate as a system without a philosophy

Personally, I see science more as a method, or a set of methods, of inquiry. If you want to look for justifications for the scientific method, look no further than the fact that it produces useful, reliable knowledge.

I guess the philosophy of science is that useful, reliable knowledge, is best arrived at by empiricism, rationality, critical thinking, imagination tempered by observation and so on.

I am quite sure you are aware that empiricism cannot offer anything objective - all it can indicate are a series of subjective categories which eventually reach a blank in the microcosm
IOW if you point to your nose you can say it is matter, but you can't answer what matter is, so all we are left with is a network of relative terms (nothing ultimate)

I agree. There is nothing "ultimate" in the sense you want. You can have an endless regress, if you want. It might go like this:

- What is your nose, ultimately?
- It is matter.
- What is matter, ultimately?
- It is quantum fields.
- What are quantum field, ultimately?
- They are fluctuations in the probability field of the vaccum?
- What is the vacuum, ultimately?
- It is nothingness.
- What is nothingness, ultimately?
- ...

Or, you could ask a scientist, and the conversation might go like this:

- What is your nose, ultimately?
- It is made of atoms.
- What are atoms, ultimately?
- Atoms consist of protons and neutrons and electrons.
- What is a proton, ultimately?
- A proton consists of quarks.
- What is a quark, ultimately?
- A quark is a scientific model that allows us to explain protons and atoms and noses.
- Yes, but what is a quark, ultimately?
- I don't think you're inquiry is useful. This is an endless regress.

But compare the answer you'd get from a religious person:

- What is your nose, ultimately?
- It is a gift from God?
- What is God, ultimately?
- God is everything.
- So, your nose is God, ultimately?
- Yes.

Have we learnt anything about the ultimate nature of noses from any of these responses? I wonder.

And can you suggest any method that will give us knowledge of the "ultimate" nature of noses? I think not.

lightgigantic:

I agree. There is nothing "ultimate" in the sense you want. You can have an endless regress, if you want. It might go like this:

- What is your nose, ultimately?
- It is matter.
- What is matter, ultimately?
- It is quantum fields.
- What are quantum field, ultimately?
- They are fluctuations in the probability field of the vaccum?
- What is the vacuum, ultimately?
- It is nothingness.
- What is nothingness, ultimately?
- ...

Or, you could ask a scientist, and the conversation might go like this:

- What is your nose, ultimately?
- It is made of atoms.
- What are atoms, ultimately?
- Atoms consist of protons and neutrons and electrons.
- What is a proton, ultimately?
- A proton consists of quarks.
- What is a quark, ultimately?
- A quark is a scientific model that allows us to explain protons and atoms and noses.
- Yes, but what is a quark, ultimately?
- I don't think you're inquiry is useful. This is an endless regress.

But compare the answer you'd get from a religious person:

- What is your nose, ultimately?
- It is a gift from God?
- What is God, ultimately?
- God is everything.
- So, your nose is God, ultimately?
- Yes.

I thought this section was especially interesting.
In the scientific regressions we move to smaller and smaller levels. It seems like there is an assumption that the smaller the pieces, the more ultimate/causal/true.
In the religious - pantheistic version, I am not sure Christians think their nose is a part of their transcendant God - we end up denying the nose it's separate status, we reach the whole.
A child or the 'common' person might actually have ultimate answers which would focus on the nose's use and it's phenomenology. 'I smell things with it' 'It's what gets cold first when I go sledding' and so on. These seem to have an ultimate status that neither contradicts either the scientific or the religious and actually is more satisfying. At least to me.

But these two trends, reductionisms both, where mystics eliminate inviduals and scientists - sometimes - eliminate complex wholes both seem misguided to me as metaphysics. As exploratory practices and partial truths, great, but as routes to the ultimate, well.....

JamesR


You know, I think I half agree with you.
I disagree (joking)

But, at the same time, I don't think you're saying anything very interesting or useful - nothing that will help science, anyway.
help science accomplish what exactly?

Your point seems to be that no observer is completely separate from his observation, because his consciousness is always necessarily involved in the process. Hence, no science is entirely objective, because all scientific conclusions are arrived at by conscious beings. This is not news to scientists.
I am not sure you understand my usage of the word "consciousness"
for instance the consciousness of the empiricist is "I am these senses"
the consciousness of the rationalist is "I am this mind"
and the consciousness of the transcendentalist is "I am that which is transcendental to the mind and senses' (aka soul)

thus there are three distinct platforms of knowledge according to consciousness

What you appear to miss is that there are many separate consciousnesses involved in assembling scientific knowledge.
yes, but if they are all unanimously persons who identify with the mind and/or the senses, such a show of numbers is not very significant

So, while each one probably has a slightly different view of the world, they attain a consensus about the world external to any individual. And that is what gives science its objectivity. Observations, theories and conclusions in science are all testable, repeatable, checkable by other people. There is no individual revelation required, as in religion.
actually if you examine what religions require of an individual to become more "spiritual" you will see that there is a general consensus (free from envy for instance)
and as indicated in th OP, testability, etc offers no insurance against the onslaughts of envy

Scientific knowledge is not some tested body of truths about how the world works but is the result of a competitive struggle for the ear of the community, waged by the protagonists of various competing points of view by whatever means comes to hand, including propaganda, the unscrupulous exercise of power, and skillful use of persuasive rhetoric.


“
actually knowledge that deals with the consciousness ("what I am") is superior to that knowledge that deals with the mind and so forth - for instance if one is of the notion that ultimately "I am this body" that will seriously affect what information they garner form the mind and senses
”
And what happens when 1000 people compare notes on some phenomenon?
and if they all think they are the body it simply means that information garnered will be filtered through such rose coloured glasses

“
I am not sure in what understanding you are using these words - for instance one cannot get knowledge of the senses without the mind, and one cannot get knowledge from the mind without consciousness - IOW the root cause of all knowledge is the "I"
”
Do you subscribe to a Cartesian dualism (or tri-ism) then? Consciousness is separate from mind which is separate from body? If so, why?
the distinctions between the body and the self should be obvious (we no longer have a toddler's body)
the distinctions between the mind and the self can also be indicated by our changing tastes (for instance we may no longer like mickey mouse, despite neither mickey mouse or the nature of our "I'ness" undergoing any change)

however in the ultimate sense it is still a dualism - just that there are distinctions between subtle and gross matter - Descartes identified subtle matter with the soul

“
its quite easy - "ultimate" indicates either the foundation or conclusion - for instance the ultimate foundation of empiricism is the senses (therefore it has no scope for issues beyond such a foundation) - this leads to the ultimate conclusion of empiricism - namely that it cannot indicate anything ultimate since it relies on tacit definitions...
”
This is where I can agree with you. I don't think empiricism can ever attain the kind of "ultimate" you're looking for.
then that means empiricism has no scope for making ultimate statements or establishing the likelihood of things that in any way unknown.
For instance their is no scope for saying centaurs don't exist or are unlikely to exist - all that can be said is "I/we have not seen centaurs"

But then, neither can anything else.
if all that one has access to is the mind and the senses, that is definitely the case

“
if you examine any empiricist/rationalist claim, you will see that the absolute authority is the mind and/or senses - for instance saying water does not boil at 100 degrees can be accepted as true by such persons if it can been seen to be so or if a reason can be given for it to be so - at the foundation of such claims are the senses (in terms of "centigrade") or the collective knowledge of how things could be expected to behave (according to what we have gleaned from our senses) - these two things form the "complete" picture (or absolute) for discussion by an empiricist/rationalist, despite the glaring fact that it wouldn't be realistic for the complete picture to ever come within the purview of such limited facilities
”
It is not the aim of science to define a concept such as "temperature" in the kind of "ultimate" sense you are talking about. The concept is a tool for saying something meaningful about the world. It lets us state objective facts in a precise way.
the problem is that is neither objective or precise but merely relative

If you think "temperature" has an "ultimate" truth beyond the definition that physicists have given it, then I have no idea how you reach that conclusion in any logical fashion.
logic is a function of rationalism - IOW logic (of the physicist) is an appeal to the consciousness of other physicists - if there is entrance to a broader picture of consciousness, there is the scope for a broader presentation of logic

“
For instance water is not "observed" to boil at 100 degrees celcius - it works out as something slightly less - and even then it gives slightly different readings according to the vessel it is boiled in, environment, altitude, etc - but for the sake of convenience we say "water boils at 100 degrees" in the mood of "near enough is good enough" (ie the mood of "incompleteness")
complete knowledge involves issues of consciousness, which would get back to issues of values (such as what is the purpose of this world that we are so desperate to control)
”
This is more about use of language than any "ultimate" meaning. When we say that water boils at 100 degrees, it is implicit that the observation is made under what physicists call "standard conditions" - a given atmospheric pressure, for example. The sloppy use of language where we do not specify all relevant conditions doesn't mean that such conditions cannot be specified.

The fact is, the statement that water boils at 100 degrees Celcius under certain conditions can be made as precise as you want.
actually "celcius" is just that - a use of language - because there are no standard conditions

“
hence it a fallacy to grant a guess in science the same status as an observation in science
(IOW our logical conclusions on what the evidence suggests stands distinct from the evidence)
”
Yes. I agree. Again.
then why would a scientist say that water boiling under heat is as much a fact as macro evolution or the age of the earth when the former is arrived at through observation and the