10 ms·

> All of those say pretty much the same, in so far as they are applicable to the situation? Do you think they mean the same thing as your definition? If so why

> All of those say pretty much the same, in so far as they are applicable to the situation? Do you think they mean the same thing as your definition? If so why, otherwise where did you get your definition of 'incompatible with science' from? > ... it is non-scientific methods that are (potentially) incompatible with [science]. Is this to say that non-scientific methods are not necessarily incompatible with science? > Using science. How is science demonstrated to be reasonably reliable for determining the truth of a claim? Is that to say that science can demonstrate the reliability of a methodology that is used to determine the truth of non-scientific claims? > Because science is concerned with reality, and determining what is true about reality, and formal claims don't say anything about reality. Define reality. How do you know that formal claims don't say anything about reality? Is science the only method that can determine what is true about reality? > Yes, obviously? Then, how do you know that mathematical claims are not about reality when it may simply be the case that the rules that derive them have not been demonstrated to be reasonably reliable for determining the real truth of such a claim? > As far as this discussion is concerned, it's the idea that methods you use to justify claims about reality should be demonstrably reliable. What about this definition determines that not being testable is "about as incompatible with science as you can get"? Why define 'science' this way over utilizing some form of the top definitions of 'science' resulting from a quick google search (e.g. "the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment", "such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world", "systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation", "is the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence")? === > Distances (in spaces) and cardinality (of sets). What is distance? What are spaces? What is cardinality? What are sets? > If we can what? Distinguish the word 'mathematics' from the concept of mathematics? Not the word but mathematics itself. Just like you can distinguish a rock from the concept of a rock. > No ... Then why state "... (by mathematicians)" rather than "(by some mathematicians)" (though that still wouldn't seem to help assert your case)? It seams like your using the intent of mathematicians to assert that axioms are not claims about reality when you don't know the intent of all mathematicians. Do you have a more solid way to stake your claim? > Which might be because they are not all talking exclusively about mathematics? Then from where are you drawing your definition? > But really, I don't get what the point of all this even is. ... I have pointed out that those categories can be distinguished, and that showing something for one of those categories does not demonstrate truth for the other categories. We have singled out formal truths from real truths to highlight your position that distinguishes them. I have yet to agree that formal truths are not real truths because I don't think that you have established that as fact. > Well, yes and no. So you don't know whether your defining 'axiom' however you want and whether the statement "axioms are not claims about reality" simply conforms with your definition? > No, in that I used the definition that is commonly accepted... What is, and from where are you drawing, your definition of axiom? > No. It is not obvious that there is such a thing as "given the Peano axioms", absent humans (or possibly more generalized evaluators). So, it is not obvious to you that '1 < 2' does or does not have a referent, because the Peano axioms that '1 < 2' is derived from may or may not be a purely artificial construct of humans (or possibly more generalized evaluators)? > That depends on the definition of "exists". What is your definition? > As far as the most commonly used definition is concerned, the non-physical does not exist, because existence by definition implies physicality "You constantly want to make this assumption, but that assumption really is just the assumption of the [non-]existence of the immaterial, and as such it's not a useful basis for demonstrating the [non-]existence of the immaterial, because every false claim could be assumed to be true in order to demonstrate that it is true, and thus assuming a claim in order to demonstrate that it is true is not a reliable method for determining the truth of a claim. > because existence by definition implies physicality (when a normal person says "there exists no grocery store in this street", they are not excluding the possibility that a non-physical grocery store exists in the street) How do you know 'existence' is implying physicality in this scenario over 'grocery store' implying physicality? === > ... Or what? Read 'can be'. > Hu?! I mean, yeah, we can observe changes in state, I guess, but then we also can observe changes in state that we don't have explanations for, can't we? So ... no? Not having an explanation now doesn't mean that there can't be one. Science has yet to fail in giving us further explanations for things. So, unless you want to deny the effectiveness of science you have no case. > Well ... maybe? It smells like a setup for equivocation ... If a wall was painted completely blue and then someone added a spec of orange somewhere, then wall as a whole would not be blue. > Well ... yeah? The point being? Has anyone made the claim that reality is not entirely intelligible? You asked "Couldn't there be mechanisms by which something changes state that can not be determined by science?". My point is "No" for the aforementioned reasons. > Could you explain then what there is to this potential to change the state of the electric field beyond what is described by the theory of the electron and other charged particles (I used only "electron" before for simplicity, but I guess some more precision is appropriate here)? There is nothing to the "potential to change the state of the electric field" that goes beyond what is described by the theory of the electron and other charged particles. The theory incorporates notions of change. Stating that something can change is to state that the potential for that thing to change exists. So, the "potential to change the state of the electric field" doesn't go beyond the theory. > As far as I can tell, "the potential to change" generally is simply a way to describe certain attributes of a thing, and you haven't demonstrated that that isn't all that's going on here. This sounds like a claim against my definition. If that's what it is, then you'll need to substantiate that your definition is something I need to deny, but... You yourself rightly noted to me that it doesn't make sense to ask if a definition is true. Are you now saying that I need to argue against a definition, one that, as far as I can tell, you made up? Or perhaps you are saying that your definition is the generally accepted one, and you are asking me to argue that your definition isn't the generally accepted one. In which case I'd ask you to substantiate your claim that your definition is the generally accepted one? > When someone says "this lamp has the potential to change color", there isn't a thing in addition to the lamp that we call "the potential to change color", neither a physical nor a non-physical one Soooo, you don't think a lamp can change color? > it's simply a way of expressing the fact that it has colored light filters built in, or uses different-colored LEDs, and that there are controls or something to influence in which proportions those are used to produce light. And not to express that a lamp can change color...? > If you think there is something like "the essence of the potential to change color" that has some sort of existence beyond what is described by the mechanism of the lamp, that would be for you to demonstrate. Again, like with the electric field, "the essence of the potential to change color" does not exist beyond what is described by the mechanism of the lamb because the mechanism of the lamp is in part described by change. To be able to change color is "the essence of the potential to change color", which of course exists, otherwise you'd be saying something tantamount to "lamps can't change color". That "non-physical potential(s) of particular physical things exists" is the conclusion to my 'potential' argument. You have yet to substantiate any objection against it. === > So, you think they ought to follow their belief even though they demonstrably (I think you would agree?) will achieve the exact opposite of their stated goal by doing so? Long story short: It is immoral to do what you think is immoral even if it is moral, so you'll be better off doing what you think is moral even if it is immoral. That being said we are obligated to correct our neighbors' incorrect moral beliefs and to be open to being corrected. Looking back, all of my statements regarding the scenarios were ambiguous to my intent because they were all meant to be tied to morality but I didn't explicitly state it as such. My bad. > Well, yeah ... so there is no reason to care about morality under your definition, then? Does a person not substantiating a claim mean that the claim is not true? Out of curiosity, what would you say is a reason to care about science?

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
[part 1 ... yeah, seems I don't manage to stay under the limit] Note: We seem to be getting side-tracked with tons of irrelevant details. Instead of answering all your questions, I will try try reformulating my position on some things in the hopes of maybe clearing up some of the confusion. > Do you think they mean the same thing as your definition? If so why, otherwise where did you get your definition of 'incompatible with science' from? What does any of this matter? It is really simple: I, just as scientists generally, use the word "science" to mean "the collection of methods that are demonstrably reliable for determining facts about reality". Religion uses methods that are not demonstrably reliable for determining (supposed) facts about reality. So, religion will make (real) truth claims and will claim that those are reliable, where science says that those claims are unreliable, which means that the statements are in conflict. That is the fact of the matter. If you want to argue about whether there are some people who hold positions as scientists who happen to use a different definition, or whether this is true, ultimate incompatibility when it is possible for both to exist in the same universe ... really, I am just not interested, because none of that changes anything about this pretty easy to understand fact. What I am interested in are substantial arguments that show that in fact the methods used by religions to make (real) truth claims are comparable in reliability to scientific methods. > How is science demonstrated to be reasonably reliable for determining the truth of a claim? By testing whether the predictions made by whatever method is suggested as part of scientific methodology do come true with a probability higher than chance, preferably much higher than chance. > How do you know that formal claims don't say anything about reality? How do you know that claims about football don't say anything about the car industry? First and foremost, that is a nonsensical question. When someone makes a claim that they intend to say something about football, then that is what their claim is about, by the definition of what it means to make a claim. You are making it way more complicated than necessary when you try to then argue about whether the statement could somehow also be interpreted as being about the car industry. Maybe it can, but that doesn't change anything about the fact that whoever made the claim was not trying to convey anything about the car industry. The speaker didn't mean what they didn't mean, no matter how much you argue about the labels used to describe the situation and whether the statement could be reinterpreted to mean something else than what was meant by the speaker. The fact that the same sequence of words can be used to describe distinct facts about reality does not mean that when you show that one of those facts is true, all other facts that could be described using the same words are also true, so it is a completely futile exercise to keep arguing about whether some word or some statement could also mean something else. > Then, how do you know that mathematical claims are not about reality when it may simply be the case that the rules that derive them have not been demonstrated to be reasonably reliable for determining the real truth of such a claim? Because there is nothing in the claim that even refers to reality, just as there is nothing in the claim about football that refers to the car industry. This has absolutely nothing to do with whether some method is reliable--there is simply no method at all, it's all just a category error. You might as well be asking how I know that claims about English grammar are not about reality when it may simply be the case that the rules to derive English sentences have not been demonstrated to be reasonably reliable for determining the real truth of such a claim. When someone says "'The tree jumps over the moon.' is a grammatically correct English sentence", it is nothing more than a category error to ask what that statement says about reality. It simply doesn't. It is, very obviously, talking about the formal system also known as the English language, and whether the sentence 'The tree jumps over the moon.' can be derived from the "axioms" of the English language. Also, it is completely irrelevant whether someone somewhere maybe does make statements that are intended to say something about both English grammar and medicine. The fact that that might somehow be possible still does not change that in general, when someone talks about English grammar, they are not talking about medicine. And most importantly for this conversation: When I am telling you that I am explicitly not talking about medicine, but only about English grammar, it is just completely besides the point to keep going on about how someone maybe could also mean to say something about medicine. > What is distance? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_(mathematics)#Definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_(mathematics)#Definitio... > What are spaces? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_space#Definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_space#Definition > What is cardinality? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinality > What are sets? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiomatic_set_theory#Axiomatic_set_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiomatic_set_theory#Axiomatic... The point is: A bunch of axioms and what results from them. > Not the word but mathematics itself. Just like you can distinguish a rock from the concept of a rock. So, what would you point to for mathematics if you wanted to point to mathematics while avoiding pointing to the concept of mathematics? I don't see what could possibly be meant by that, so if you want to make the claim that there is something there, it's up to you to demonstrate that there is. > Then why state "... (by mathematicians)" rather than "(by some mathematicians)" For the same reason that you don't say "The earth is considered to be an oblate spheroid (by most physicists)", and the fact that you are asking this makes me wonder how much you are actually trying to understand, rather than just trying to avoid justifying your own position. It is just completely normal and not the slightest bit of a problem that you generalize when talking about groups of people, when it is just completely irrelevant whether some small minority of that group deviates from what otherwise defines that group. > We have singled out formal truths from real truths to highlight your position that distinguishes them. I have yet to agree that formal truths are not real truths because I don't think that you have established that as fact. There is no fact to establish here. I am simply telling you about the distinction that I am making (as are many other people). And it doesn't even matter whether formal truths are also real truths. What matter is that you can distinguish formal truths from not-formal truths. > So, it is not obvious to you that '1 < 2' does or does not have a referent, because the Peano axioms that '1 < 2' is derived from may or may not be a purely artificial construct of humans (or possibly more generalized evaluators)? I guess so? I mean, I would say it's pretty obvious that the way we know them they are an artificial construct of humans (like, the axioms were formulated by humans). If you think there is more to it than that, that would be for you to demonstrate. > Not having an explanation now doesn't mean that there can't be one. You are shifting the burden of proof, again. It is really getting annoying. You implicitly claimed that there would be explanations for all things we have no explanations for yet. I rejected that claim. When I reject your claim that there will be explanations, I am not making any claim, and in particular I am not making the claim that there will be things that will be unexplained forever, so stop turning my asking for your justification around into "but some other claim I have made up is unjustified as well!". If you make the claim that there will be explanations for everything we can observe, then it is up to you to substantiate that claim. You are not justified in making that claim just because I have not demonstrated that something will stay unexplained forever--a claim that I never made, and that is in no way implied in my rejection of your claim. If there is a question to which we don't know the answer, your unsubstantiated answer does not win by default until someone disproves it. If we don't know the answer, we don't know the answer, and it's up to you to demonstrate that you do know the answer if you think that you do. > Science has yet to fail in giving us further explanations for things. So, unless you want to deny the effectiveness of science you have no case. Science constantly fails to give us answers? Like, exactly everything we don't know, which is, like, a lot? The effectiveness of science is very obviously limited, given how much we would want to know, but don't. That doesn't mean it's ineffective, it just as obviously is not, but there is no contradiction between recognizing that it is limited, and possibly fundamentally so (in the sense that some things might stay unexplained forever), and recognizing that it is effective. > If a wall was painted completely blue and then someone added a spec of orange somewhere, then wall as a whole would not be blue. Yeah, sure. The problem is when you then build an argument on that and then use that argument to conclude something about almost completely blue walls.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago

[part 1 ... yeah, seems I don't manage to stay under the limit] Note: We seem to be getting side-tracked with tons of irrelevant details. Instead of answering all your questions, I will try try reformulating my position on some things in the hopes of maybe clearing up some of the confusion. > Do you think they mean the same thing as your definition? If so why, otherwise where did you get your definition of 'incompatible with science' from? What does any of this matter? It is really simple: I, just as scientists generally, use the word "science" to mean "the collection of methods that are demonstrably reliable for determining facts about reality". Religion uses methods that are not demonstrably reliable for determining (supposed) facts about reality. So, religion will make (real) truth claims and will claim that those are reliable, where science says that those claims are unreliable, which means that the statements are in conflict. That is the fact of the matter. If you want to argue about whether there are some people who hold positions as scientists who happen to use a different definition, or whether this is true, ultimate incompatibility when it is possible for both to exist in the same universe ... really, I am just not interested, because none of that changes anything about this pretty easy to understand fact. What I am interested in are substantial arguments that show that in fact the methods used by religions to make (real) truth claims are comparable in reliability to scientific methods. > How is science demonstrated to be reasonably reliable for determining the truth of a claim? By testing whether the predictions made by whatever method is suggested as part of scientific methodology do come true with a probability higher than chance, preferably much higher than chance. > How do you know that formal claims don't say anything about reality? How do you know that claims about football don't say anything about the car industry? First and foremost, that is a nonsensical question. When someone makes a claim that they intend to say something about football, then that is what their claim is about, by the definition of what it means to make a claim. You are making it way more complicated than necessary when you try to then argue about whether the statement could somehow also be interpreted as being about the car industry. Maybe it can, but that doesn't change anything about the fact that whoever made the claim was not trying to convey anything about the car industry. The speaker didn't mean what they didn't mean, no matter how much you argue about the labels used to describe the situation and whether the statement could be reinterpreted to mean something else than what was meant by the speaker. The fact that the same sequence of words can be used to describe distinct facts about reality does not mean that when you show that one of those facts is true, all other facts that could be described using the same words are also true, so it is a completely futile exercise to keep arguing about whether some word or some statement could also mean something else. > Then, how do you know that mathematical claims are not about reality when it may simply be the case that the rules that derive them have not been demonstrated to be reasonably reliable for determining the real truth of such a claim? Because there is nothing in the claim that even refers to reality, just as there is nothing in the claim about football that refers to the car industry. This has absolutely nothing to do with whether some method is reliable--there is simply no method at all, it's all just a category error. You might as well be asking how I know that claims about English grammar are not about reality when it may simply be the case that the rules to derive English sentences have not been demonstrated to be reasonably reliable for determining the real truth of such a claim. When someone says "'The tree jumps over the moon.' is a grammatically correct English sentence", it is nothing more than a category error to ask what that statement says about reality. It simply doesn't. It is, very obviously, talking about the formal system also known as the English language, and whether the sentence 'The tree jumps over the moon.' can be derived from the "axioms" of the English language. Also, it is completely irrelevant whether someone somewhere maybe does make statements that are intended to say something about both English grammar and medicine. The fact that that might somehow be possible still does not change that in general, when someone talks about English grammar, they are not talking about medicine. And most importantly for this conversation: When I am telling you that I am explicitly not talking about medicine, but only about English grammar, it is just completely besides the point to keep going on about how someone maybe could also mean to say something about medicine. > What is distance? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_(mathematics)#Definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_(mathematics)#Definitio... > What are spaces? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_space#Definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_space#Definition > What is cardinality? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinality > What are sets? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiomatic_set_theory#Axiomatic_set_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiomatic_set_theory#Axiomatic... The point is: A bunch of axioms and what results from them. > Not the word but mathematics itself. Just like you can distinguish a rock from the concept of a rock. So, what would you point to for mathematics if you wanted to point to mathematics while avoiding pointing to the concept of mathematics? I don't see what could possibly be meant by that, so if you want to make the claim that there is something there, it's up to you to demonstrate that there is. > Then why state "... (by mathematicians)" rather than "(by some mathematicians)" For the same reason that you don't say "The earth is considered to be an oblate spheroid (by most physicists)", and the fact that you are asking this makes me wonder how much you are actually trying to understand, rather than just trying to avoid justifying your own position. It is just completely normal and not the slightest bit of a problem that you generalize when talking about groups of people, when it is just completely irrelevant whether some small minority of that group deviates from what otherwise defines that group. > We have singled out formal truths from real truths to highlight your position that distinguishes them. I have yet to agree that formal truths are not real truths because I don't think that you have established that as fact. There is no fact to establish here. I am simply telling you about the distinction that I am making (as are many other people). And it doesn't even matter whether formal truths are also real truths. What matter is that you can distinguish formal truths from not-formal truths. > So, it is not obvious to you that '1 < 2' does or does not have a referent, because the Peano axioms that '1 < 2' is derived from may or may not be a purely artificial construct of humans (or possibly more generalized evaluators)? I guess so? I mean, I would say it's pretty obvious that the way we know them they are an artificial construct of humans (like, the axioms were formulated by humans). If you think there is more to it than that, that would be for you to demonstrate. > Not having an explanation now doesn't mean that there can't be one. You are shifting the burden of proof, again. It is really getting annoying. You implicitly claimed that there would be explanations for all things we have no explanations for yet. I rejected that claim. When I reject your claim that there will be explanations, I am not making any claim, and in particular I am not making the claim that there will be things that will be unexplained forever, so stop turning my asking for your justification around into "but some other claim I have made up is unjustified as well!". If you make the claim that there will be explanations for everything we can observe, then it is up to you to substantiate that claim. You are not justified in making that claim just because I have not demonstrated that something will stay unexplained forever--a claim that I never made, and that is in no way implied in my rejection of your claim. If there is a question to which we don't know the answer, your unsubstantiated answer does not win by default until someone disproves it. If we don't know the answer, we don't know the answer, and it's up to you to demonstrate that you do know the answer if you think that you do. > Science has yet to fail in giving us further explanations for things. So, unless you want to deny the effectiveness of science you have no case. Science constantly fails to give us answers? Like, exactly everything we don't know, which is, like, a lot? The effectiveness of science is very obviously limited, given how much we would want to know, but don't. That doesn't mean it's ineffective, it just as obviously is not, but there is no contradiction between recognizing that it is limited, and possibly fundamentally so (in the sense that some things might stay unexplained forever), and recognizing that it is effective. > If a wall was painted completely blue and then someone added a spec of orange somewhere, then wall as a whole would not be blue. Yeah, sure. The problem is when you then build an argument on that and then use that argument to conclude something about almost completely blue walls.