3 ms·

No, because I feel like there are a lot of background assumptions involved in that process, many of which are either unexamined or necessary for the theory-maki

No, because I feel like there are a lot of background assumptions involved in that process, many of which are either unexamined or necessary for the theory-making process. These background assumptions are reinforced every time the theory allows me to make correct predictions and challenged every time I make incorrect predictions. Incorrect predictions allow me to update the theory or the assumptions. When scientists do the a formal version of the same process as you have described, they make similar background assumptions. Perhaps you can explain how this whole process transpires without assuming anything?

lisper 6y ago
> I feel like there are a lot of background assumptions involved in that process Like what?
- chordalkeyboard 6y ago
  In your informal example, I’m assuming that the person I’m speaking to is an honest interlocutor. In the scientist’s formal counterpart, he is assuming that the phenomena he observes correspond to the representation he assigns in the formal model. For a specific example, in order to infer the composition of a star, one must assume that the spectra emitted by a star are products of the same emission process as observed in a laboratory here on Earth.
  - lisper 6y ago
    > I’m assuming that the person I’m speaking to is an honest interlocutor. OK, but you have taken it upon yourself to assume that. I never asked you to assume it. It is entirely possible that the person you are talking to is not being honest. They could be gaslighting you. It is even possible that they are not a person. They could be a shape-shifting space alien disguising themselves as a person as part of a grand conspiracy to prevent you from discovering the fact that you are a 13-dimensional being with super-powers who would take over the universe if you became aware of your true nature. So... among these two theories which I have now proposed to explain your observations, which do you think is more likely?
    - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
      I’m not sure which is more likely, I have interacted with honest interlocutors and with gaslighters before. That’s kind of the point, isn’t it? I can easily assume good faith and move forward, which involves an assumption of good faith. Or I can refuse to assume anything and do what now?
      - lisper 6y ago
        > I’m not sure which is more likely. Seriously? You assign the same probability to classical physics as you do to people around you being shape-shifting space aliens disguising themselves as people as part of a grand conspiracy to prevent you from discovering the fact that you are a 13-dimensional being with super-powers who would take over the universe if you became aware of your true nature? You'll have to excuse me if I find that hard to believe.
        chordalkeyboard 6y ago
        No, the 13th dimensional being was your theory. I just didn’t believe the person in the scenario you described, the same way you are doubting my sincerity in this little conversation.
        lisper 6y ago
        > the 13th dimensional being was your theory Yes. So? > I just didn’t believe the person in the scenario you described, Why not? > the same way you are doubting my sincerity in this little conversation. Not quite the same way, because I can answer the "why not" question, and I'm pretty sure you can't. But let's leave that aside and try a different experiment. I presume you have a mobile phone? If not, substitute some other common object. For the next week, for everyone you encounter, show them your cell phone (or whatever common object you choose) and ask them, "Do you see this? What is it?" and see if you don't observe a certain consistency in their answers. How do you account for that consistency?
        6y ago

lisper 6y ago

> I feel like there are a lot of background assumptions involved in that process Like what?

chordalkeyboard 6y ago
In your informal example, I’m assuming that the person I’m speaking to is an honest interlocutor. In the scientist’s formal counterpart, he is assuming that the phenomena he observes correspond to the representation he assigns in the formal model. For a specific example, in order to infer the composition of a star, one must assume that the spectra emitted by a star are products of the same emission process as observed in a laboratory here on Earth.
- lisper 6y ago
  > I’m assuming that the person I’m speaking to is an honest interlocutor. OK, but you have taken it upon yourself to assume that. I never asked you to assume it. It is entirely possible that the person you are talking to is not being honest. They could be gaslighting you. It is even possible that they are not a person. They could be a shape-shifting space alien disguising themselves as a person as part of a grand conspiracy to prevent you from discovering the fact that you are a 13-dimensional being with super-powers who would take over the universe if you became aware of your true nature. So... among these two theories which I have now proposed to explain your observations, which do you think is more likely?
  - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
    I’m not sure which is more likely, I have interacted with honest interlocutors and with gaslighters before. That’s kind of the point, isn’t it? I can easily assume good faith and move forward, which involves an assumption of good faith. Or I can refuse to assume anything and do what now?
    - lisper 6y ago
      > I’m not sure which is more likely. Seriously? You assign the same probability to classical physics as you do to people around you being shape-shifting space aliens disguising themselves as people as part of a grand conspiracy to prevent you from discovering the fact that you are a 13-dimensional being with super-powers who would take over the universe if you became aware of your true nature? You'll have to excuse me if I find that hard to believe.
      - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
        No, the 13th dimensional being was your theory. I just didn’t believe the person in the scenario you described, the same way you are doubting my sincerity in this little conversation.
        lisper 6y ago
        > the 13th dimensional being was your theory Yes. So? > I just didn’t believe the person in the scenario you described, Why not? > the same way you are doubting my sincerity in this little conversation. Not quite the same way, because I can answer the "why not" question, and I'm pretty sure you can't. But let's leave that aside and try a different experiment. I presume you have a mobile phone? If not, substitute some other common object. For the next week, for everyone you encounter, show them your cell phone (or whatever common object you choose) and ask them, "Do you see this? What is it?" and see if you don't observe a certain consistency in their answers. How do you account for that consistency?
        6y ago