4 ms·

> Otherwise, it's compatible with literally anything > and hence can explain nothing. Could you explain your reasoning here?

pfdietz 3y ago
An explanation for why X is true must also be an explanation of why not X is false. But God could perfectly well explain why not X is true and X is false. If God has no predictive power, if it's consistent with anything, it can't be used to distinguish between any possibilities, and hence can't explain why they should hold.
- mistermann 3y ago
  A problem: there is no requirement for explanations to be true. In fact, untrue explanations are very often preferred, if not ~mandatory.
esafak 3y ago
Otherwise you can't test it, for one. It is easy to concoct all-encompassing explanations that can't be proven wrong. Here's one I just made up: instead of one god, there is a pantheon of gods. And a different one for each universe. Ours is governed by the Norse league. Prove me wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
- dl9999 3y ago
  I think unguided natural processes plus deep time plus multiverses could also be an all-concompassing explanation that can't be proven wrong.
  - mistermann 3y ago
    Even more fundamental: anything ~false built on top of Naive Realism can exist indefinitely not just undiscovered to be false, but cannot even be identified as a candidate for consideration. Let's hope we don't have this problem here on planet Earth, and especially at a core, fundamental level(s)!
    - Kim_Bruning 3y ago
      Hmm, maybe my explanation above was too ELI5, you'll have to accept my apologies if so, and you may need to explain in more detail what you're asking exactly there. Meanwhile can you expand on your take on Naive Realism here? What's the specific issue with Naive Realism you're pointing out? (am aware there's issues)
      - mistermann 3y ago
        Humans contemplate "reality" on top of various models of it, as well as various other processes (cognition) and phenomena (culture), thinking they are contemplating reality itself. And the whole world runs on this. It's kind of funny if you think about it.
        Kim_Bruning 3y ago
        I think René Magritte might have been on to you back in 1929. ;-) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Treachery_of_Images https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Treachery_of_Images (More seriously, Indirect Realism is actually several centuries old already, isn't it?)
        mistermann 3y ago
        Very nice! And yes, it is indeed very old...old and forgotten, even by those who have knowledge of it. But it may even be worse: what is it in the first place?
Kim_Bruning 3y ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw < have an explanation by Feynman on the scientific method. (Feynman is a great teacher!) The whole video is pretty good, and the specific point starting with "You cannot prove a vague theory wrong" is explained around 5:10.
- mistermann 3y ago
  Can you explain how this video substantiates the the claims in the comment to which I am replying?
  - Kim_Bruning 3y ago
    Not sure what you're asking here. In re: > Otherwise, it's compatible with literally anything and hence can explain nothing. Feynman restates it from a different angle: he calls these kinds of things vague theories and states that they are not very useful to scientists because they can be hard to prove wrong. Throughout he gives a bunch of examples of such vague theories that cannot be proven wrong. (eg that moogles did it, or the positions of the planets influenced when to go to the dentist, or maybe it was caused by flying saucers. ) He also points out Newtons laws which are not vague, and thus can and have been proven somewhat wrong since (see also: Einstein) . I think further down our thread, this is in re whether saying "God did it" (or "A wizard did it" etc ) has Explanatory power: * Why do the planets move in ellipses: "God did it" * Why do the tides go in and out: "A wizard did it" * How fast will an apple hit my head if dropped from precisely 10.25 meters, and will I need to wear a helmet? "Zeus knows the answer" etc. I mean, all technically plausible answers (maybe?), but not very useful if you're trying to understand anything. :-P (ps. The answer to the latter should be about ~14.17 m/s ~= 50.4 km/h . Something you could go out and measure for yourself outdoors if you like! )
    - mistermann 3y ago
      I think I may have noticed the problem: > Otherwise, it's compatible with literally anything > and hence can explain nothing. If I'm not mistaken, what you're referring to is the fundamental unknowability of certain things, and this state often causes the mind to hallucinate "facts" like the two above. "It is unknown, therefore it is a fact that anything is possible" is plain bad thinking, but paradoxically it is very popular thinking (thus: proper thinking), even among relatively smart people. There must be something going on here that can "explain" (in a non-incorrect fashion) all of this, it seems unlikely that we've stumbled upon never before encountered phenomena. > I mean, all technically plausible answers (maybe?), but not very useful if you're trying to understand anything. :-P I too enjoy building simple strawmen and knocking them down: "Science exists, and "is correct", and I believe in it, therefore my personal opinion of fact is factual in fact". I wonder which of these two strawmen most closely matches actual conversations that can be found on the internet. I constantly hear stories about religious people saying incredibly silly things (over and above standard silly Normative Cognition), but I rarely ever encounter it in real life. What I describe in my strawman though (essentially: scientism, the ~religion of science, etc), it is extremely common on all social media platforms, ion TV, in the newspaper, etc.

pfdietz 3y ago

An explanation for why X is true must also be an explanation of why not X is false. But God could perfectly well explain why not X is true and X is false. If God has no predictive power, if it's consistent with anything, it can't be used to distinguish between any possibilities, and hence can't explain why they should hold.

mistermann 3y ago
A problem: there is no requirement for explanations to be true. In fact, untrue explanations are very often preferred, if not ~mandatory.

esafak 3y ago

Otherwise you can't test it, for one. It is easy to concoct all-encompassing explanations that can't be proven wrong. Here's one I just made up: instead of one god, there is a pantheon of gods. And a different one for each universe. Ours is governed by the Norse league. Prove me wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

dl9999 3y ago
I think unguided natural processes plus deep time plus multiverses could also be an all-concompassing explanation that can't be proven wrong.
- mistermann 3y ago
  Even more fundamental: anything ~false built on top of Naive Realism can exist indefinitely not just undiscovered to be false, but cannot even be identified as a candidate for consideration. Let's hope we don't have this problem here on planet Earth, and especially at a core, fundamental level(s)!
  - Kim_Bruning 3y ago
    Hmm, maybe my explanation above was too ELI5, you'll have to accept my apologies if so, and you may need to explain in more detail what you're asking exactly there. Meanwhile can you expand on your take on Naive Realism here? What's the specific issue with Naive Realism you're pointing out? (am aware there's issues)
    - mistermann 3y ago
      Humans contemplate "reality" on top of various models of it, as well as various other processes (cognition) and phenomena (culture), thinking they are contemplating reality itself. And the whole world runs on this. It's kind of funny if you think about it.
      - Kim_Bruning 3y ago
        I think René Magritte might have been on to you back in 1929. ;-) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Treachery_of_Images https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Treachery_of_Images (More seriously, Indirect Realism is actually several centuries old already, isn't it?)
        mistermann 3y ago
        Very nice! And yes, it is indeed very old...old and forgotten, even by those who have knowledge of it. But it may even be worse: what is it in the first place?

Kim_Bruning 3y ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw < have an explanation by Feynman on the scientific method. (Feynman is a great teacher!) The whole video is pretty good, and the specific point starting with "You cannot prove a vague theory wrong" is explained around 5:10.

mistermann 3y ago
Can you explain how this video substantiates the the claims in the comment to which I am replying?
- Kim_Bruning 3y ago
  Not sure what you're asking here. In re: > Otherwise, it's compatible with literally anything and hence can explain nothing. Feynman restates it from a different angle: he calls these kinds of things vague theories and states that they are not very useful to scientists because they can be hard to prove wrong. Throughout he gives a bunch of examples of such vague theories that cannot be proven wrong. (eg that moogles did it, or the positions of the planets influenced when to go to the dentist, or maybe it was caused by flying saucers. ) He also points out Newtons laws which are not vague, and thus can and have been proven somewhat wrong since (see also: Einstein) . I think further down our thread, this is in re whether saying "God did it" (or "A wizard did it" etc ) has Explanatory power: * Why do the planets move in ellipses: "God did it" * Why do the tides go in and out: "A wizard did it" * How fast will an apple hit my head if dropped from precisely 10.25 meters, and will I need to wear a helmet? "Zeus knows the answer" etc. I mean, all technically plausible answers (maybe?), but not very useful if you're trying to understand anything. :-P (ps. The answer to the latter should be about ~14.17 m/s ~= 50.4 km/h . Something you could go out and measure for yourself outdoors if you like! )
  - mistermann 3y ago
    I think I may have noticed the problem: > Otherwise, it's compatible with literally anything > and hence can explain nothing. If I'm not mistaken, what you're referring to is the fundamental unknowability of certain things, and this state often causes the mind to hallucinate "facts" like the two above. "It is unknown, therefore it is a fact that anything is possible" is plain bad thinking, but paradoxically it is very popular thinking (thus: proper thinking), even among relatively smart people. There must be something going on here that can "explain" (in a non-incorrect fashion) all of this, it seems unlikely that we've stumbled upon never before encountered phenomena. > I mean, all technically plausible answers (maybe?), but not very useful if you're trying to understand anything. :-P I too enjoy building simple strawmen and knocking them down: "Science exists, and "is correct", and I believe in it, therefore my personal opinion of fact is factual in fact". I wonder which of these two strawmen most closely matches actual conversations that can be found on the internet. I constantly hear stories about religious people saying incredibly silly things (over and above standard silly Normative Cognition), but I rarely ever encounter it in real life. What I describe in my strawman though (essentially: scientism, the ~religion of science, etc), it is extremely common on all social media platforms, ion TV, in the newspaper, etc.