One for the loons.

[Skepdick]

...even though you quite clearly hadn't read the article.

Well, I clearly remember reading the article, so there appears to be a bug in your mind-reading powers.

Anyway, the example I use in the article is gravity. We don't know WHY there is a force of gravity, but that makes no difference to our ability to measure it. With enough measurements, we can sift the data, looking for patterns which the likes of Newton and Einstein can generalise into mathematical models. These are accurate enough that we can make predictions about future astronomical events, send rockets to the Moon and so on. That, if you like, is the Telos of science. So yeah, in a sense, if you can crunch the numbers, you understand what happens, but it doesn't mean you will understand why it happens.

The point that is lost in your story is that prediction is all about buying time.

The measurements you take now produce the results you would observe X seconds later, but the process works in reverse also.
If you make an observation now you can arrive at a set of measurements that would have been true X seconds ago.

Those measurements, that were true X seconds ago that result in the phenomenon you are observing presently become the colloquial/explanatory "why".

Which is pretty obvious to any physicist, actually. Because most of physics is about formalising intuition.

Like this chap who solved a 127 year old problem.
Your first instinct would be "but that's obvious!". Obviously it's obvious - the first requirement of good science is good observation.

The mystery was in the absence of a formal model identifying the key variables. The 'why?'

[uwot]

Well, I clearly remember reading the article, so there appears to be a bug in your mind-reading powers.

Great. So the mystery is why you keep labouring points that were addressed in the article.

The mystery was in the absence of a formal model identifying the key variables. The 'why?'

Another mystery but, yeah, that's the why that gets results and matters most to physics. The philosophical why is why there is a force of gravity. Is it warped spacetime? Gravitons? Angels dancing on pinheads? Makes foxtrot alpha difference to the calculations, but can be a useful conceptual model to explore.

[Skepdick]

The philosophical why is why there is a force of gravity. Is it warped spacetime? Gravitons? Angels dancing on pinheads? Makes foxtrot alpha difference to the calculations, but can be a useful conceptual model to explore.

The philosophical "why" is the question of meaning. If you are searching for meaning in science - look elsewhere.

Science converges to nihilism.

[uwot]

Ayyayyay. So in order to have the truth, one must believe that s/he hasn't got the truth?

Kinda. Is it true that if you drop something heavy it falls? Yup. Is it true that on most conditions on Earth it will accelerate at 9.8ms²? Yup. Is it true that's because massive objects warp spacetime? Maybe.

I don't share your exhuberant enthusiasm for Socrates' greatness. Maybe you lack professional jealousy, which I maybe don't lack.

I'm not a particular fan of Socrates, but the general principle holds, I think. People who claim to know the answer to any philosophical question are loonies.

[uwot]

The philosophical "why" is the question of meaning. If you are searching for meaning in science - look elsewhere.

Spacetime, gravitons - any hypothesis that goes beyond the data is a philosophical model. None of those have much 'meaning' in human terms.

Science converges to nihilism.

Mathematics in my book.

[Age]

To me, there is only one Mind, so there is NOT, in a sense, like minded people.

I like minded people. I don't much care for non-minded people.

In a sense, there are no 'minded people', and therefore would have it been better if I wrote; so there is NOT, in a sense, 'like-minded' people?

To me, obviously there are people of similar, and/or same, thoughts, but Mind is NOT thoughts.

[Age]

Well the value judgements is kinda the point. Socrates made it clear that anyone who claims to know the truth about some philosophical issue, is ultimately just expressing their opinion.

You mean, Socrates is endorsing the wrongness of his entire philosophy, pending anyone's opinion? To me this is what it reads what you wrote. And this is certainly how "I don't know what I don't know that I don't know anything that is not or well known" reads, too, in the all-too-common language of the all-too-common man or woman.

What a revelation. Socrates opines his books written by Plato can be cast away and people can babble on nonsense, and take themselves seriously, as long as they believe their own nonsense, and as long as it's about a philosophical issue.

All of a sudden the theories and bullshit of JohnDoe, Skepdick, Nick_A, Dontaskme, Age, et al gain veritable validity.

All because of Socrates.

I do not have a theory.

[-1-]

Socrates opines his books written by Plato can be cast away and people can babble on nonsense, and take themselves seriously, as long as they believe their own nonsense, and as long as it's about a philosophical issue.

All of a sudden the theories and bullshit of JohnDoe, Skepdick, Nick_A, Dontaskme, Age, et al gain veritable validity.

All because of Socrates.

Nah. They're the types of loon that really believes they have the answer. Socrates was making monkeys of their sort two and a half thousand years ago.

Okay. Socrates first postulates that knowledge claimed of truth over philosophical topics are ALL a matter of opinion. So are his.

I say "truth" instead of "answer" because answer by itself begs a question, and we miss that element in this dialogue.

But then he makes monkey out of those who take his word that all are opinions.

Socrates was not fair here. If the expressed truths on philosophical issues are all opinions, there is no measure of fitness which opinion is better than the other. If he makes monkey out of others for their opinion, he, inadvertently, makes monkey out of himself, by the law of philosophical osmosis. By that I mean that if one opinion is the opinion of a monkey, then all opinions are opinions of monkeys. Therefore his NOT pointing out his own monkeyness, is a hypocritical, unfair and mostly morally wrong deed. And his monkeyness is not only not pointed out, but is placed by him on a scale of superiority to the opinion of others.

This is despicable.

[Skepdick]

he, inadvertently, makes monkey out of himself, by the law of philosophical osmosis.

Did you just make that law up? Yes you did!

By that I mean that if one opinion is the opinion of a monkey, then all opinions are opinions of monkeys.

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

Therefore his NOT pointing out his own monkeyness, is a hypocritical, unfair and mostly morally wrong deed.

But he did point out his monkeyness. He pointed out that he doesn't know anything.

And his monkeyness is not only not pointed out, but is placed by him on a scale of superiority to the opinion of others.

This is despicable.

If a monkey that admits to knowing nothing can make a fool of your ideas, what does that say of your ideas?

Sophists debate. Scientists demonstrate.

[-1-]

Ayyayyay. So in order to have the truth, one must believe that s/he hasn't got the truth?

Kinda. Is it true that if you drop something heavy it falls? Yup. Is it true that on most conditions on Earth it will accelerate at 9.8ms²? Yup. Is it true that's because massive objects warp spacetime? Maybe.

These are not philosophical issues. These are issues of science. All truths being mere opinions apply to philosophical issues, and this is one of the (by now conveniently forgotten by you) premisses of your argument.

I don't share your exhuberant enthusiasm for Socrates' greatness. Maybe you lack professional jealousy, which I maybe don't lack.

I'm not a particular fan of Socrates, but the general principle holds, I think. People who claim to know the answer to any philosophical question are loonies.

Thank you for agreeing that Socrates was a loonie.

Socrates did not merely satisfy himself by shooting down others' opinions. He created his own system of philosophical truths, which was his answer to philosophical questions. He believed, for instance, that the allegory of the cave was true, and he believed that the forms physically exist.

Kant was a loonie, so was Descartes, and many, many others.

I think it is time for you to retract that Socrates was right when he stated that those who have answers to philosophical questions are all loonies.

There must be a difference between Plato, Socrates, Descartes, Kant, in one kamp, and Nick_A, Skepdick, JohnDoe7, et al, in the other kamp and that difference must be demarkated by OTHER than that they all have opinions that they believe are answers to philosophical truths. I deny that the difference YOU PRESENTED HERE exits. You failed to present a difference on the basis the loons believe their theories are answers to philosophical questions, while non-loons do not believe that.

I insist that believing oneself is right is not a division-strength difference, furthermore I insist that believing in one's own opinion makes one a loon, and I insist that there are other differences that make the first kamp non-loons, while the second kamp comprises loons.

[Skepdick]

Nick_A, Skepdick, JohnDoe7, et al, in the other kamp and that difference must be demarkated by OTHER than that they all have opinions that they believe are answers to philosophical truths.

Oh! Oh! Now I am being mis-represented.

My position is precisely that the very notion of "philosophical truth" is bullshit! You are the loon for believing in the very idea of truth - I am here to do exactly what Socrates did. Be a gadfly.

Everybody is guessing. Some guesses are better than others.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_models_are_wrong

[uwot]

Okay. Socrates first postulates that knowledge claimed of truth over philosophical topics are ALL a matter of opinion. So are his.

Well ya gotta differentiate between knowledge and wisdom. Socrates wasn't making any knowledge claims. Er, beyond that he knew nothing. Rather it is wise to acknowledge that any claim to knowledge about what or why is provisional. How is a different matter. How best is to back into 'dunno'. Lots of ways to skin a cat.

Socrates was not fair here. If the expressed truths on philosophical issues are all opinions, there is no measure of fitness which opinion is better than the other.

Exactly. It's just that if the spanner fits, use it.

This is despicable.

Like I said, I'm not a great fan of Socrates, but he made a good point.

[-1-]

Well ya gotta differentiate between knowledge and wisdom. Socrates wasn't making any knowledge claims. Er, beyond that he knew nothing. Rather it is wise to acknowledge that any claim to knowledge about what or why is provisional.

Okay, I get it. The difference between a loon and a non-loon is that the non- acknowledges his opinion is provisional, and the loon insists his opinion is the truth; the loon leaves no room for dissent, theoretically or in practice.

Well done, uwot.

(Although one may get his teeth into this argument, as well, much along on the same mechanics as on "I know nothing"... but I shan't be tedious.)

[uwot]

(Although one may get his teeth into this argument, as well, much along on the same mechanics as on "I know nothing"... but I shan't be tedious.)

Well yeah. You can get your teeth into any philosophical argument. That's what we've been doing for two and a half millennia. The only thing that proves is that there is no one answer to the issues. So why do it? Precisely to point out that loonies who insist they know the answers are loonies.

[-1-]

(Although one may get his teeth into this argument, as well, much along on the same mechanics as on "I know nothing"... but I shan't be tedious.)

Well yeah. You can get your teeth into any philosophical argument. That's what we've been doing for two and a half millennia. The only thing that proves is that there is no one answer to the issues. So why do it? Precisely to point out that loonies who insist they know the answers are loonies.

"The only thing that proves is that there is no one answer to the issues." Except there are counter-arguments that can shoot down an argument for good. If the argument contradicts the law of the excluded middle, for instance, then the argument is wrong in any way possible.

That is the beauty of quantum mechanics. It has shown the world that physical events can contradict the law of the excluded middle. This the new philosophers explain with the explanation, that our (humans') logic has been developed to be intuitive with the macro physical environment, and our logic is incomplete. It is set to correspond to challenges in survival, and there is more to the world than biological human survival, which allows us to be fundamentally wrong in our logic.

The modern philosophers have even a name for the logic systems. Old, humanly-intuitive logic is called Logic One, and humanly non-intuitive logic is called Logic Two.