peacegirl wrote: ↑Tue Feb 05, 2019 4:57 pm
I will look at what you posted, but please don't flame at me. So far the conversation was civil. Let's keep it that way.
Reason and OBSERVATION. Obviously the true test is whether there is pragmatic significance.
Reason and observation will get you to a testable hypothesis.
A testable hypothesis is still just that - hypothetical until you actually test it.
If it doesn't agree with prediction/experiment - it's wrong.
peacegirl wrote: ↑Tue Feb 05, 2019 4:57 pm
I will look at what you posted, but please don't flame at me. So far the conversation was civil. Let's keep it that way.
Reason and OBSERVATION. Obviously the true test is whether there is pragmatic significance.
Reason and observation will get you to a testable hypothesis.
A testable hypothesis is still just that - hypothetical until you actually test it.
If it doesn't agree with prediction/experiment - it's wrong.
No one is disputing that, but we cannot simulate a no free will environment (an blameless environment) in a free will environment (a blame filled environment). It will skew the test just like Schooler's experiment did. I already told you this. That doesn't mean it can't be empirically tested nor does it mean the two-sided equation is wrong just because the extension of these principles hasn't been proven worldwide. Of course, this is the goal.
peacegirl wrote: ↑Tue Feb 05, 2019 4:57 pm
I will look at what you posted, but please don't flame at me. So far the conversation has been civil. Let's keep it that way.
Reason and OBSERVATION. Obviously the true test is whether there is pragmatic significance.
Reason and observation will get you to a testable hypothesis.
A testable hypothesis is still just that - hypothetical until you actually test it.
If it doesn't agree with prediction/experiment - it's wrong.
I agree, as long as the test can be simulated in such a way that it cannot be contaminated. You're speaking without even knowing his proof or caring to know. You don't seem at all interested because if he didn't uncover this finding through the scientific method (the only way you believe a truth can be found), it can't be right. I will try to read the article but it's long and I don't have that much time. I'll save it to read later.
The purpose of reasoning is to connect mathematical relations not
to prove the validity of inaccurate perceptions.
Durant begins with the assumption that direct perception (which
are words that symbolize what he cannot possibly understand) is
superior to reasoning in understanding the truth which made a
syllogistic equation necessary to prove the validity of an inaccurate
perception. Thus, he reasons in his minor premise: “Free will is not
a matter of reasoning, like determinism, but is the result of direct
perception, therefore...” and here is his fallacious conclusion, “since
philosophies of free will employ direct perception which cannot be
beaten down by the reasoning of determinism, the belief in free will
must eternally recur.” He knew that free will was a theory, but as long
as proof was not necessary when it could be seen with the direct
perception of our common sense that it was impossible to turn the
other cheek (the corollary thrown up by determinism), he was
compelled to write — “Let the determinist honestly envisage the
implications of his philosophy.”
This indicates that all his reasoning
in favor of free will was the result of inferences derived from the
inability to accept the implications. Durant is anything but a scientist
and an accurate thinker. Since it is absolutely impossible for free will
to ever be proven true (I take for granted this is now understood),
nothing in this universe can prove determinism an unreality (and in
this context it shall only mean the opposite of free will as death is the
opposite of life), simply because this would automatically prove the
truth of free will which has been shown to be an impossibility.
Consequently, the belief in free will and all conceptions regarding it
can only remain in existence as a plausible theory just as long as no
undeniable evidence is produced in contravention. According to his
reasoning he assumes that free will is true because, in his mind,
determinism is false, and the reason he thinks determinism is false is
because man is not a machine. Then, not realizing how
mathematically impossible is his next statement he claims that
philosophies of freedom (free will) eternally recur because reasoning
and formulas cannot beat down the obvious truth of direct perception.
Take a look at that last statement very carefully and see if you can’t
tell why it is mathematically impossible.
If free will was finally proven
to be that which is non-existent (and let’s take for granted that you
know this for a fact) and accepted as such by our scientific world at
large, would it be possible according to Durant’s statement for
‘philosophies of freedom’ to recur anymore? Isn’t it obvious that the
recurrence of the belief in free will is a mathematical impossibility
once freedom of the will is proven to be a figment of the imagination,
or to phrase it differently, a realistic mirage? Is it humanly possible
for the belief that the world is flat to eternally recur when we have
mathematical knowledge that it is round? Consequently, the
continued return of the belief in free will can only be due to the fact
that it is still a logical theory or plausible conception that has never
been analyzed properly, allowing the belief and its philosophies to
persist.
But Durant states that philosophies of freedom eternally
recur not because of the explanation I just gave, an explanation that
cannot be denied by anyone anywhere, even by this philosopher
himself providing it is understood, but because direct perception can
never be beaten down with formulas, or sensation with reasoning.
Isn’t it apparent that such words have no relation to reality whatever?
If Durant believed direct perception was considered superior to
reasoning, is it any wonder he was so confused and his reasoning so
fallacious since the word ‘because’ which denotes the perception of a
relation, whether true or false, indicates that he is criticizing
reasoning while reasoning. This doesn’t stop a person from saying,
“I believe.” “It is my opinion.” “I was taught that man’s will is free,”
but it would certainly stop him from trying to defend his position with
an argument.
Belinda wrote: ↑Tue Feb 05, 2019 4:53 pm
The axiom that causes people to argue that is that there is something worth saving.
This is a moral issue, not a modeling issue.
Peacegirl's is a moral stance *and her inductive argument , we must presume, issues from her moral stance. Nobody bothers to observe data without first believing the effort to be worthwhile.
* from Peacegirl's original post:
This discovery lies locked behind the door of determinism. It has the power to prevent from coming back that for which blame and punishment were previously necessary.
So far I have presented the orthodox position of scientists: truth about how the universe works cannot generally be arrived at by pure reason.
I will look at what you posted, but please don't flame at me. So far the conversation was civil. Let's keep it that way.
Reason and OBSERVATION. Obviously the true test is whether there is pragmatic significance.
WHAT'S WRONG WITH THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD?
My version of the scientific method
OPEN A MIDDLE-SCHOOL textbook or look on the wall of a science classroom. There it is. Written like the Ten Commandments of science - THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD. Too bad it's mostly a lie. Yes. I'm going there.
What is the Scientific Method? ——————————
There are different forms of this scientific method. Some are just like my graphic above, some have other steps in there. They are all generally the same. Here is a very basic description.
peacegirl wrote: ↑Tue Feb 05, 2019 5:44 pm
My version of the scientific method
OPEN A MIDDLE-SCHOOL textbook or look on the wall of a science classroom. There it is. Written like the Ten Commandments of science - THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD. Too bad it's mostly a lie. Yes. I'm going there.
What is the Scientific Method? ——————————
There are different forms of this scientific method. Some are just like my graphic above, some have other steps in there. They are all generally the same. Here is a very basic description.
peacegirl wrote: ↑Tue Feb 05, 2019 5:44 pm
My version of the scientific method
OPEN A MIDDLE-SCHOOL textbook or look on the wall of a science classroom. There it is. Written like the Ten Commandments of science - THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD. Too bad it's mostly a lie. Yes. I'm going there.
What is the Scientific Method? ——————————
There are different forms of this scientific method. Some are just like my graphic above, some have other steps in there. They are all generally the same. Here is a very basic description.
What's wrong with the scientific method is the same thing that's wrong with democracy.
They are the least terrible option given the alternatives.
It may be one way to find answers, but it's not the only way. Again, this doesn't mean empirical evidence isn't the ultimate test of whether a solution is pragmatic and makes a real difference.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 04, 2019 7:43 pm
You are the one "pushing" about satisfying. I am asking what is your "stance" and why?
Because I understand that the majority humans do not understands complexity or risk management.
What I do know about complexity is that it's too complex for us to compute all the consequences of our actions.
And I know that making changes to complex systems has many, undesirable side effects which need to be taken into account.
What I do know is that making changes to systems we do not understand is unlikely to result in success.
And what I do know is that structures such as society (which have endured entropy for millenia) are anti-fragile as per the Lindy effect.
Humans who think they can "fix" it cause more harm than good.
Most human being don't understand "x", it is all relative to the master for the master effectively knows nothing...and that is what relativity is isn't...movement to nothing as nothing.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:I am so glad you decided to come in and join the conversation...please tell me how "order" is restored...or even if this is the right question to ask. ...
Where did I ask a question?
Right above.
You are so witty and clever....err "try to be", I want to be entertained.
I am listening.
Good for you.
I am still waiting for you to explain it all, so I guess patience is "good"?
peacegirl wrote: ↑Tue Feb 05, 2019 4:57 pm
I will look at what you posted, but please don't flame at me. So far the conversation was civil. Let's keep it that way.
Reason and OBSERVATION. Obviously the true test is whether there is pragmatic significance.
Reason and observation will get you to a testable hypothesis.
A testable hypothesis is still just that - hypothetical until you actually test it.
If it doesn't agree with prediction/experiment - it's wrong.
Dually there are infinite hypothesis for every test, pretty much stating that the framework as an extension of the hypothesis is fundamentally indefinite or reflecting a sense of randomness.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 05, 2019 7:40 pm
Dually there are infinite hypothesis for every test, pretty much stating that the framework as an extension of the hypothesis is fundamentally indefinite or reflecting a sense of randomness.
That there are, but you aren't starting with infinite hypothesis - you are starting with the one YOU synthesized.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 05, 2019 7:40 pm
Dually there are infinite hypothesis for every test, pretty much stating that the framework as an extension of the hypothesis is fundamentally indefinite or reflecting a sense of randomness.
That there are, but you aren't starting with infinite hypothesis - you are starting with the one YOU synthesized.
Sythesis is infinite as its divergent and convergent properties are a continuum of continuums and as such is both absolute and relative.
