Hypotheses? Forget About It!

[RCSaunders]

Not really sophistry. There is no sign at all that the planet is for example cat-shaped in 1 more dimensions or a simulation, so yes, we can just go on assuming that it isn't (or even if it is, that doesn't affect us at all).

But we can never exclude the possibility of such things. Being 100% certain of truths and excluding such possibilities is actually the sign of a defective mind.

If it is defective to refuse to fill one's mind with ideas for which there is neither evidence or reason, than I prefer a defective mind. I refuse to accept as a possibility every crackpot idea invented by every neurotic on the planet for the sole reason that I cannot prove it is not true (although most cannot be true without contradicting what is known to be true). I'll consider any idea for which there is evidence of some kind, but it has to be evidence that can be either directly perceived, or based on the fact of perception, or deduced by non-contradictory reason from one of these.

No need to be hysterical. Filling one's mind with every crackpot idea isn't quite the same as simply accepting the fact that what we consider to be true could turn out to be false, thanks to some new evidence.

"We can never exclude the possibility of such things," is accepting every crackpot idea. The certainty of knowledge is not a claim to infallibility, which is exactly why I said I'll consider any idea for which there is evidence. There are always things imperfectly known, and there is always more to learn, but not knowing everything does not mean knowing nothing. If you do not feel comfortable being certain of anything, OK. I just wonder how someone can go through life never knowing for certain any choice they make is based on the truth and is the right choice. It's funny, too, that your statements sound as if you were certain what you are saying is true.

[RCSaunders]

I'll consider any idea for which there is evidence of some kind.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

What exactly does one use to arrive at an idea when there is no evidence whatsoever? The name of that kind of thinking is mysticism or imagination run amok.

In goal-directed activities counter-factual thinking is quite useful.

Dictators and other politicians use it all the time. Scientists, not so much.

[Atla]

"We can never exclude the possibility of such things," is accepting every crackpot idea. The certainty of knowledge is not a claim to infallibility, which is exactly why I said I'll consider any idea for which there is evidence. There are always things imperfectly known, and there is always more to learn, but not knowing everything does not mean knowing nothing. If you do not feel comfortable being certain of anything, OK. I just wonder how someone can go through life never knowing for certain any choice they make is based on the truth and is the right choice. It's funny, too, that your statements sound as if you were certain what you are saying is true.

Uncertainty is inherent in everything (even in this very statement). Many people simply lack the strength to face this.

[RCSaunders]

Uncertainty is inherent in everything (even in this very statement). Many people simply lack the strength to face this.

Atla, I do not mean this to be directed at you. I have learned that the form of extreme skepticism that claims nothing is certain and everything is doubtful to some degree is actually a form of hedge against being responsible for one's choices. 'After all, if one cannot be certain of anything how can they be responsible for making wrong choices?' ...the unspoken argument goes.

It takes courage to admit one has no excuse for their ignorance, that they could know if they chose to make the effort, and to take responsibility for all their choices and actions. It's easier and takes a lot less strength of character to say, "well no one can be absolutely certain, so why try?"

I'm almost certain this is not the case with you, but I do think you've been influenced by the skeptic philosophers. You are yourself aware of the self-contradictory nature of the position, "uncertainty is inherent in everything, even this statement," which of course means, "it cannot be known that it cannot be known."

Take a look at the periodic table of the elements and tell me which characteristics of any element identified there are in doubt.

[Atla]

I'm almost certain this is not the case with you, but I do think you've been influenced by the skeptic philosophers. You are yourself aware of the self-contradictory nature of the position, "uncertainty is inherent in everything, even this statement," which of course means, "it cannot be known that it cannot be known."

Well you seem to be processing "uncertainty is inherent in everything, even this statement" as a self-contradiction even though it's sort of an infinite regress without contradiction. One of the basic mistakes in philosophy, almost everyone does it on this forum.

Take a look at the periodic table of the elements and tell me which characteristics of any element identified there are in doubt.

None (but that could change eventually, personally I don't think it will, but still).

[A_Seagull]

So if I understand you correctly, the Earth used to be flat but now it is round?

You do not understand me correctly and that could only be if you are intentionally obfuscating what I wrote. No one can actually be that lacking in comprehension.

When a person uses faulty or incomplete nor contradictory logic, as you have done, then absurd conclusions can be reached. It is a demonstration of the faulty logic.

[RCSaunders]

Take a look at the periodic table of the elements and tell me which characteristics of any element identified there are in doubt.

None (but that could change eventually, personally I don't think it will, but still).

You are right. They cannot change. It's an epistemological impossibility.

Every element is identified by its attributes. The periodic table only organizes the elements in terms of those attributes. Epistemelogically, every element is whatever its attributes and characteristics are. If any attribute of any element could change it would cease to be that element.

I have a lot of sympathy with skepticism. I do not accept anything as true based on any authority, or feeling or sentimentality and I have no use for orthodoxy or experts. I reject or doubt most of what is taught and promoted as knowledge or truth, especially in philosophy, and in all ideologies. So we may not be so far apart in our views. Most of the things I reject I am certain are wrong, but I know certain knowledge is possible.

I've enjoyed your comments.

[RCSaunders]

When a person uses faulty or incomplete nor contradictory logic, as you have done, then absurd conclusions can be reached. It is a demonstration of the faulty logic.

Have I done that? Because I otherwise agree with yoy completely.

[Atla]

None (but that could change eventually, personally I don't think it will, but still).

You are right. They cannot change.

I wrote that that could change eventually.

It's an epistemological impossibility.

Every element is identified by its attributes. The periodic table only organizes the elements in terms of those attributes. Epistemelogically, every element is whatever its attributes and characteristics are. If any attribute of any element could change it would cease to be that element.

If we decide that epistemologically, we allow attributes of elements to change, then it's allowed. Why would our descriptions of the world put constrains on the world?

For example it might turn out one day that hydrogen atoms are lighter in distant regions of the universe, but we would probably decide to still call them hydrogen atoms.

[Univalence]

What exactly does one use to arrive at an idea when there is no evidence whatsoever? The name of that kind of thinking is mysticism or imagination run amok.

First. You start with acknowledging the fallibility of your own knowledge.
Then you consider alternative hypotheses as to the one you deem "true".
Then you compute the consequences of your alternative hypothesis.

The name of that kind of thinking is mysticism or imagination run amok.

You are welcome to call it whatever you want. It's not going to stop me from using it.

It is one particular kind of Thought experiment.

Dictators and other politicians use it all the time.

And businessmen. And engineers. And most rational human beings.
Attaching images is too painful on this forum, so here is a tweet (with a comic) that perfectly demonstrates the sentiment.

https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/1031550056875339777

Scientists, not so much.

Scientists most of all! The sentiment not even wrong is precisely about being committed to one's conclusions knowing full well that the premises are speculative.

Why would a scientist do something like that? Because theoretical science doesn't have to be right, but if it must (at least) be wrong to be useful.

In fact, the over-reliance on existing predictive models/evidentiary reasoning has a name. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludic_fallacy

[Univalence]

You are right. They cannot change. It's an epistemological impossibility.

Impossibility is a big word for positive claims about features of reality...

Every element is identified by its attributes. The periodic table only organizes the elements in terms of those attributes. Epistemelogically, every element is whatever its attributes and characteristics are. If any attribute of any element could change it would cease to be that element.

So would you say that protium, deuterium and tritium are "the same" element as hydrogen even though they have different attributes?

If yes, then your claim above is demonstrably wrong.
if no, where in the periodic table would you find protium, deuterium and tritium?

[RCSaunders]

... Why would our descriptions of the world put constrains on the world?

The constraints are not on the world. Reality is what it is independent of anyone's awareness or knowledge of it. (Independent of does not mean separate from, it means whether or not anyone is aware or has knowledge of it.) Every existent is whatever it is and is identified by its attributes. Anything with different attributes is a different thing.

For example it might turn out one day that hydrogen atoms are lighter in distant regions of the universe, but we would probably decide to still call them hydrogen atoms.

Hydrogen atoms are lighter on the moon than on earth. An entity's weight is determined by its context, but for any context it is absolute. If an entity is identified by a specific weight in a specific context, an entity with a different weight in that same context would be a different entity.

[RCSaunders]

So would you say that protium, deuterium and tritium are "the same" element as hydrogen even though they have different attributes?

Chemically they are the same element. They are not the same entities, because they have different attributes (atomic wights), but as chemical elements they are the same.

... where in the periodic table would you find protium, deuterium and tritium?

Try here. Click on the symbol for hydrogen and all the isotopes are explained.

[RCSaunders]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludic_fallacy

Ah, Taleb. That explains everything. Thanks for the interesting conversation,

[Atla]

An entity's weight is determined by its context, but for any context it is absolute. If an entity is identified by a specific weight in a specific context, an entity with a different weight in that same context would be a different entity.

"Entity" is more like also just our description. I meant that it could turn out that hydrogen atoms have a different weight in the same context in other regions of the universe, and we would probably still call them hydrogen atoms.