How do we find the ''best'' explanation?

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by wegs, Oct 14, 2016.

  1. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225
    I see it as simply unmitigated philosophical biased bullshit.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,190
    Your a simple man , I don't expect anything less from you pad .
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225
    But not as simple as to be taken in and fooled by your bullshit: And of course your peers on this forum will judge as to who is simple,

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,190
    You are a simple man pad .

    So you are relying on the forums mods. to judge your simplicity .

    I don't , you are a simple man pad .
     
  8. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225
    Is that supposed to be an insult river?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    And of course in your own simplicity you are confusing mods with peers...Understand?
    Just as I said, your peers will be the judge of whatever qualities either you or I have.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  9. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,190
    You are what you are pad. No insult .
     
  10. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225
    Ignoring my simple trolling friend.....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    We can always be wrong...all of us, including the professional experts in a particular field.
    The first question I believe should be asked, is does the person making any claim, have a known or obvious agenda?
    Is he credentialed, and/or an expert in the field being discussed?
    If he isn't an expert but is disputing what is generally accepted, does he have an agenda?....does he have an ego problem?

    The big important issue with science, and what puts it head and shoulders above all others, is of course the scientific methodology and the fact that it sees nothing wrong in changing and change it does, according to the evidence available.
    Could my local garbage man come up with a theory of everything next week?
    Possibly yes, but really quite unlikely.
    But I as a lay person, prefer to put my faith with the professional experts for the reasons already stated.
    On the other hand when fads and conspiracies start re things like UFO sightings, Big giant hairy humanoids, ghosts goblins etc, science inevitably and rightly, so, the scientific methodology is applied, and failure to validate the incident is the outcome. Even so, much of mainstream media will grab such stories simply for the sensationalistic aspect as I noted in wegs other thread.
    In the end though, they mostly come out with the true slant on the story and why it was invalidated by science.
    Others will of course leave the question open, again for that senasational aspect.
    So yes, again in my opinion, sometimes faith is necessary...faith in the professionals, faith in the scientific process and methodology, but faith with good reason!.
     
  11. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,190
    Oh...faith .... how misguided you are .

    Such a simple man .
     
  12. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Trolling again river? You can't even make a good job of that.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  13. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,190
    Having a struggle pad .
     
  14. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225
    I don't believe so: People have and still do, show themselves as simply trolls and I'm not sure feeling sorry for trolls is the right approach.
     
  15. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,190
    Oh the " troll " defence mechanism ; how typical of you pad .
     
  16. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225
    In answer to the OP again, the biggest hurdle to obtaining the best explanation is having an agenda or strong fanatical belief in something else.
    Case in point:
    Many reputable members on this forum have observed the fanaticism of some in mythical beliefs and UFO sightings.
    Near all those members with regards to the few UFO sightings that have not had a logical scientific explanation, all reasonably agree that those sightings simply remain as "Unidentified" The first letter in the acronym UFO.
    Most would accept that as valid, yet all it does with two of our famous conspiracy/paranormal/gullible members is fire them up to the usual childish insults and trolling.
    No "best explanation" will ever succeed with this type.

    The best explanation, as I have inferred, needs to be tied to the scientific method, and even then in some cases, there could be more than one explanation, probably based on interpretation.
    Best interpretation? In time, Time will tell......
     
  17. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,596
    Good point. The same difference, btw, as between radio and simple written text.

    Written text is much better, not only because there is also no distraction by sound. Voices may be, don't forget, sexual attractive too. But there is even more, namely the reader depends much less on the tempo, and the composition of the presentation, which is often used to hide the weak points. The reader can focus his interest on these weak points, think about them in detail. If he has not understood a point, he can stop reading, rereading, thinking about this.
     
  18. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,596
    It comes quite close to it.

    Because a scientist, at least in hard sciences (I'm not talking here about feminist sciences, literary criticism or similar nonsense) have to learn science, and that means, they have to understand the basics. To understand them is essentially impossible if one does not recognize the power of argument. So, scientists are used to accept that arguments can be used to show something, and that one has to think about them.

    But this is what matters. If one recognizes the power of arguments, is ready to hear arguments and to think about them, this is what deserves to be named "open minded". It does not follow at all that one has to accept any of these arguments. One has to be open to think about them at least once (the n-th repetition may be ignored by open minded people too).
    No. It makes good sense to hear both sides. And to think about the arguments of both sides. But the result of this thinking may be very one-sided.
     
    Seattle likes this.
  19. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,596
    Not at all. This is a quite secondary ad hominem question. There are many parts where the agenda is simply completely irrelevant, because the arguments proposed contain already all what we need to decide the question. Like, say, in mathematics. If Hitler claims 2+2=4, having an evil agenda, it does not matter at all, 2+2=4. In theoretical sciences, we have not exactly, but essentially the same situation: The agenda does not matter at all.

    The agenda starts to matter if we have to trust. Say, in experimental science, if we have to trust that the experiment is not faked or not distorted. Or in theoretical discussions that quotes are correct and not out context. But even in these cases, the agenda gives only a motivation for bad behavior, thus, a reason to look carefully, or to restrict the trust to things not obviously in favor of the agenda.
    Again, this is only a weak ad hominem question. Also not completely without any value, but of low value.
    This is, indeed, the only point which justifies your interest in ad hominem arguments: You have no ability to evaluate the real arguments. Ad hominem arguments are accessible to everybody, because we need them in real life (and they are very useful in such everyday life situations). So, a scientist has no advantage in comparison with a layman in the evaluation of ad hominem arguments.
    As a layman, you have no other chance.

    Even as a scientist, you also have to trust other scientists, outside your specialization. For example, I simply accept essentially all claims of experimenters.

    But there are exceptions: In "sciences" which are strongly politically influenced, you do not have to trust scientists, but you can, based on your general scientific education, evaluate the proposed arguments. Not only those of the mainstream, but also those of the outsiders. And this is sometimes sufficient to identify the mainstream position as dubious, simply based on their repeated violations of basic scientific principles and ignorance of the arguments of the outsiders.
     
    Seattle likes this.
  20. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225
    Of course it is! Let me add also that you seem to have "supposed" adhom attacks on the brain, other than when you are throwing them yourself of course.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    And speaking of agenda's, just another aspect of your position in argueing a point, that makes your position at best questionable.
     
    Last edited: Oct 16, 2016
  21. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225
    Nonsense! If you have a stroke tomorrow, are you going to go to your green grocer for attention/advice?

    More evidence of yout bias and dishonesty when applying your standards to others, and having no standards yourself.
    Is that another adhom?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    We are all in the same boat.....
    I don't. We have those on this forum who claim to be experimenters and researchers, who would like to tell me and others that UFO's are "certainly" of Alien origin, and that ghosts and Bigfoot are real.
    Interesting though as I have remarked on before, how you decipher on what to comment on and what not to comment on isn't it?
     
  22. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,302
    Just WTF are 'feminist sciences'?
     
  23. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,596
    Learn to read, you could have found the answer in my post.
    These are, of course, not what I name experimenters. And, remember the context - the question was if I trust scientists, clearly meaning in the context mainstream scientists.
    That they answer something I have written is a strong motivation to answer, because I would like to answer all objections against what I claim. It is sometimes quite hard for me not to answer the n+1000th repetition of, say, joepistoles "this is truth" nonsense, even if I know very well that it would be better not to answer this.

    There is a second strong motivation, namely some interest in formulating the answer. This presupposes that there is something to argue and to think about, a primitive "Einstien mad logical error" nonsense would not be sufficient for this.

    A third strong motivation is refutation of propaganda lies. In particular if they appear in well-organized form, like in the Western press.
     

Share This Page