What are the Benefits of Theism?

[Skepdick]

It was you that brought him up. It is true that he believes some things that I strongly disagree with and that I have tried to change. The irony is that since I am convinced that people hold beliefs for aesthetic reasons, according to my own belief i am wasting my time. We can discuss what that says about my ego, if you wish, but it will be difficult for you to crush my ego, not because I am particularly resilient, but I simply don't care enough what you think.

I didn't bring him up. I brought your post up.

Your post just happened to mention him.

If you require some editorial help to get the point, then I shall oblige...

This is called gaslighting. I'm sure everyone knows someone who cannot admit that they are wrong. The most common reason for this is low self esteem, which creates a moral dilemma: should we laugh or feel pity? I suppose the answer depends on our own self esteem. The really funny/tragic cases are so terrified of admitting their weaknesses or mistakes that they will question the perception and memory of the people who challenge them. In conversation this can lead to confusion, self-doubt and anger for the victim. When the discourse is written down, it is a simple matter of going back and checking.

I don't particularly give a shit if you care about what I think - In fact, I hope you don't. Least of all because I am a dick.

But I do hope that you care enough to not lie to yourself about yourself when you hold others to account to the very standards you can't live up to.

[tillingborn]

But I do hope that you care enough to not lie to yourself about yourself when you hold others to account to the very standards you can't live up to.

That's very sweet of you. If I were a better person, I wouldn't get angry about people with hateful ideas and I wouldn't engage with agendas like yours. I note your concern, but I am well aware of at least some of my failings.
Anyway, back to the topic:

So what do you mean when you say "doing research into whether X is right..." in context of scientific theories?

If you remember, the point was that nobody is doing research into whether Newtonian gravity is right or wrong. There are some things which are established firmly enough that they don't warrant serious investigation.

[Skepdick]

That's very sweet of you. If I were a better person, I wouldn't get angry about people with hateful ideas and I wouldn't engage with agendas like yours. I note your concern, but I am well aware of at least some of my failings.

I see. So you hate hateful people?

If you remember, the point was that nobody is doing research into whether Newtonian gravity is right or wrong. There are some things which are established firmly enough that they don't warrant serious investigation.

And if you remember, I told you that even though you can read you struggle a lot with understanding.

I know that Newton was wrong.

I want you to tell me what it would mean for Einstein to be right.

[tillingborn]

I want you to tell me what it would mean for Einstein to be right.

Why would I, I haven't claimed that he is?

[Skepdick]

I want you to tell me what it would mean for Einstein to be right.

Why would I, I haven't claimed that he is?

You didn't claim that he IS right. You implied that he COULD be right.

You said this:

If you remember, the point was that nobody is doing research into whether Newtonian gravity is right or wrong. There are some things which are established firmly enough that they don't warrant serious investigation.

That implies that people are doing research into whether other kinds of gravity are right or wrong. Which further implies that Einstein's gravity could be right or wrong.

I know what it would mean for Einstein's gravity to be wrong.

I don't know what it would mean for Einstein's gravity to be right. That's why I am asking you.

[Immanuel Can]

I don't know much about courts of law. As I understand, in cases that are decided by a jury, a majority is enough for a conviction.

It's not. It has to be unanimous.

Thank you, I didn't know that. I've also heard there are occasional miscarriages of justice. If true, it demonstrates why aurgumentum ad populum is a fallacy.

Well, the legal standard is calle "beyond a reasonable doubt." That's because there's no such thing as "beyond any possibility ever of doubt" as there is always some theory, no matter how wacky it might be, that could be said to be remotely capable of producing doubt.

The man was caught with his hand on his wife's neck, the knife in his other hand and she was dead of stab wounds. Conclusion: beyond a reasonable doubt, guilty...but what if the postman had run in, killed the man's wife and run out again, and the husband had disarmed the postman, and was trying to revive his wife? It's an explanation, but not a likely one, unless we can find the postman and prove that he was there, and show that the man had no motive but the postman did, and show that the knife originally belonged to the postman, and so on.

So jurisprudence, like knowledge generally, is probabilistic. But even the courts recognize that a high enough probability of truth has to be enough to act on.

What they are trying to do ultimately, is find some piece of specific evidence that supports their claim and their claim only,

Sure. But there's always going to be doubt. Newton was the best guess until Einstein. Einstein will be the best until we understand all the implications of quantum theory. Quantum theory will work until we find a more probable explanation. But each of these scientific "revolutions" is a result of new evidence, not simply the result of the same evidence being used differently.

So it's not true that "all the known data counts equally for all sides". It's not the same data.

If one chooses between the sort of theories you describe, it is for precisely the aesthetic considerations I have argued for.

It's not. That may be the way you think -- I can't say -- but the rest of us don't all think like that.

There are two problems with that. Firstly, how do you know what 'the rest of you' think?

I know because I'm one of the "rest" there.

But how about you? Do you regard yourself as merely an aesthete in your judgments? I'll believe you, if you say you are. But I can still tell you there are others who think differently -- of which number, I am personally a case, and of which number, others I know claim also to be cases, and who give evidence that they are thinking in logical, rational or evidentiary terms, not in mere aesthetics.

And that being so, what is the basis on which you conclude they're actually all mere aesthetes?

Thanks to some of the many discoveries that science has made, I have no need to test any of those theories.

I didn't think you should. But science has ruled them out based on evidence, not aesthetics. It's not because rat poison isn't pretty that it's regarded as dangerous. It's because it's actually poisonous.

[Skepdick]

Well, the legal standard is calle "beyond a reasonable doubt."

Of course, the pertinent question here is: Where in the legal framework is the standard for "reasonableness" specified?

The man was caught with his hand on his wife's neck, the knife in his other hand and she was dead of stab wounds. Conclusion: beyond a reasonable doubt, guilty...but what if the postman had run in, killed the man's wife and run out again, and the husband had disarmed the postman, and was trying to revive his wife? It's an explanation, but not a likely one, unless we can find the postman and prove that he was there, and show that the man had no motive but the postman did, and show that the knife originally belonged to the postman, and so on.

But what if he had found his wife on the floor, in blood with a knife in her chest. He took the knife out (as he had seen doctors do in the movies) and tried to revive her. He neither knows nor speculates who did it. He also knows exactly how it looks but he swears it wasn't him - somebody ran out the back door as he came home (look, the door is kicked out!).

Obviously, the prosecution has to manufacture a motive (and we all know how to do that), otherwise the charges won't even stick.

[Immanuel Can]

Well, the legal standard is calle "beyond a reasonable doubt."

Of course, the pertinent question here is: Where in the legal framework is the standard for "reasonableness" specified?

I couldn't tell you for sure. I think the idea is that "ordinary blokes" ought to arrive at the point at which they can say that they have it, and "ordinary blokes" don't read legal reference works.

But Webster's says, "A reasonable doubt exists when a factfinder cannot say with moral certainty that a person is guilty or a particular fact exists. It must be more than an imaginary doubt, and it is often defined judicially as such doubt as would cause a reasonable person to hesitate before acting in a matter of importance."

But what if he had found his wife on the floor, in blood with a knife in her chest. He took the knife out (as he had seen doctors do in the movies) and tried to revive her. He neither knows nor speculates who did it. He also knows exactly how it looks but he swears it wasn't him - somebody ran out the back door as he came home (look, the door is kicked out!).

Obviously, the prosecution has to manufacture a motive (and we all know how to do that), otherwise the charges won't even stick.

I think this is why the "reasonable doubt" standard is applied, and why convictions are actually very hard to get. The defence can always argue and "alternate theory of the crime," and they have no burden to prove that their version is actually true, but only to take it so far as it warrants "reasonable doubt" that the prosecution has met their burden of proving beyond "reasonable doubt." So the deck is actually stacked in favour of the defence.

Maybe that's why defence attorneys often drive Maseratis and prosecutors tend to drive Fords or Chryslers.

[tillingborn]

What they are trying to do ultimately, is find some piece of specific evidence that supports their claim and their claim only,

Sure. But there's always going to be doubt. Newton was the best guess until Einstein. Einstein will be the best until we understand all the implications of quantum theory. Quantum theory will work until we find a more probable explanation. But each of these scientific "revolutions" is a result of new evidence, not simply the result of the same evidence being used differently.

It's not that simple. The Newtonian 'revolution' was the result of mathematical analysis of existing data and the unification of terrestrial and cosmic gravity. There was no new evidence involved; people had been observing apples fall and planets wander around the night sky for millennia. Galileo had rigorously measured the acceleration due to gravity on Earth. Kepler created a new mathematical model of planetary motion, largely from the meticulous observations of Tycho Brahe, but inspired by Kepler's pet theory that the planetary orbits were based on nested Platonic solids. In effect, Newton combined the two mathematically. In Einstein's case, there were tiny anomalies in the orbit of Mercury that Newton couldn't explain. Einstein came up with his field equations based on the idea that mass/energy warps spacetime. Whether you believe in spacetime is a matter of choice, which in my view ultimately comes down to how much you like the idea.

So it's not true that "all the known data counts equally for all sides". It's not the same data.

I didn't use those words, certainly not without context. Here is what I have said:

There isn't one piece of evidence I know of that is specific to one idea, and one idea only. All evidence, in my view, can be interpreted in different ways and used to support different ideas.

One piece of data, for example a falling apple, is compatible with Newton's Law, Modified Newtonian Dynamics and Loop Quantum Gravity. Another piece of data, for example the Mercury anomalies, falsifies Newton. Anyone who believes the Newton's Law of universal gravitation is true, is wrong, but you can believe any of the other theories of gravity which haven't been ruled out if you like.

But how about you? Do you regard yourself as merely an aesthete in your judgments? I'll believe you, if you say you are.

The point I'm making depends on what people mean by believe. I don't believe that apples fall to the ground because I like the idea of apples falling; I believe it because that is what happens. I think it is simpler to say I know apples fall. When it comes to why they fall, I have a range of options to choose from but I don't really believe in any of them.

[Skepdick]

One piece of data, for example a falling apple, is compatible with Newton's Law, Modified Newtonian Dynamics and Loop Quantum Gravity. Another piece of data, for example the Mercury anomalies, falsifies Newton. Anyone who believes the Newton's Law of universal gravitation is true, is wrong, but you can believe any of the other theories of gravity which haven't been ruled out if you like.

You are stating the obvious here.

Are you ever going to tell what it would take for Modified Newtonian Dynamics, Loop Quantum Gravity or General relativity to be right?

The point I'm making depends on what people mean by believe. I don't believe that apples fall to the ground because I like the idea of apples falling; I believe it because that is what happens. I think it is simpler to say I know apples fall. When it comes to why they fall, I have a range of options to choose from but I don't really believe in any of them.

So lets clear up the confusion. There is no theory (to my knowledge) that attributes the falling of apples to something other than gravity, so when it comes to why apples fall you don't have a range of options, you have just one option: gravity.

What you have a range of is gravity-theories. Newton, Einstein, Quantum, Some-Fringe-Theory etc, but they are all talking about and trying to describe the same thing: gravity.

So, do you believe in gravity?

[Belinda]

tillingborn wrote: ↑Sun Feb 07, 2021 6:51 am

The point I'm making depends on what people mean by believe. I don't believe that apples fall to the ground because I like the idea of apples falling; I believe it because that is what happens. I think it is simpler to say I know apples fall. When it comes to why they fall, I have a range of options to choose from but I don't really believe in any of them.

Skepdick replied:

So lets clear up the confusion. There is no theory (to my knowledge) that attributes the falling of apples to something other than gravity, so when it comes to why apples fall you don't have a range of options, you have just one option: gravity.

What you have a range of is gravity-theories. Newton, Einstein, Quantum, Some-Fringe-Theory etc, but they are all talking about and trying to describe the same thing: gravity.

So, do you believe in gravity?

Skepdick you do explain the relative status of gravity to the several explanations of gravity.
But, Skepdick, Tillingborn in effect is saying he is a physicalist(materialist). Whether I am a materialist(physicalist) or whether I am an idealist(immaterialist) my belief or uncertainty about gravity or any other scientific theory is unaltered.

Tillingborn should have put these points in separate paragraphs, as all they have to do with each other is that usage of 'belief' needs to be explained and described.

Theories of existence are another order of explanations from theories about phenomena of existence.

[Skepdick]

But, Skepdick, Tillingborn in effect is saying he is a physicalist(materialist). Whether I am a materialist(physicalist) or whether I am an idealist(immaterialist) my belief or uncertainty about gravity or any other scientific theory is unaltered.

Sure, but this puts the discussion exactly in the same place.

Whether you are uncertain about gravity; or you are uncertain about physicality/materiality; or whatever that thing "at the bottom" - it's not the bottom.

Are you as uncertain about "belief" as you are uncertain about "gravity"?

Tillingborn should have put these points in separate paragraphs, as all they have to do with each other is that usage of 'belief' needs to be explained and described.

Yes. It has to be explained like gravity has to be explained/described.

To describe gravity we need a theory of gravity.
To describe belief we need a theory of belief.

Theories of existence are another order of explanations from theories about phenomena of existence.

Indeed. There is always another order because it's turtles all the way down.

To explain "theories" we need a theory of theorising.

And then, we are never really certain of whether we are talking about belief, or the beliefs in beliefs.

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/CqyJzDZ ... -in-belief

[tillingborn]

One piece of data, for example a falling apple, is compatible with Newton's Law, Modified Newtonian Dynamics and Loop Quantum Gravity. Another piece of data, for example the Mercury anomalies, falsifies Newton. Anyone who believes the Newton's Law of universal gravitation is true, is wrong, but you can believe any of the other theories of gravity which haven't been ruled out if you like.

You are stating the obvious here.

By all means skip any parts that you find obvious, but as this was not written in response to any of your queries, spare a thought for those who don't find it obvious.

Are you ever going to tell what it would take for Modified Newtonian Dynamics, Loop Quantum Gravity or General relativity to be right?

I still haven't said that I think any theory is right, but I suppose I should be flattered that you think I know something that you don't. I can tell you what I think in the context of your follow up question:

What you have a range of is gravity-theories. Newton, Einstein, Quantum, Some-Fringe-Theory etc, but they are all talking about and trying to describe the same thing: gravity.

So, do you believe in gravity?

In much the same way that I think it is simpler to say I know apples fall, I know that some force acts between massive bodies such as apples and planets, that draws them together. So massive bodies fall towards each other is right, and some force is makes them do it is right. Assuming the scientists involved have been meticulous, it is fairly safe to say the mass of data collected is right. Whether or not one or other mathematical treatment of that data is right is besides the point. If you have six oranges, you can call them 1+5, 2x3 or whatever combination you find easiest to work with or you simply like best and they are all right. That's all the meat and potatoes of physics. Beyond the capabilities of current technology and off into the forever metaphysical, there are ideas about what causes gravity that are compatible with all of the data: spacetime topology, gravitons, quantum loops, strings etc. If anyone believes in one of those to the exclusion of the others, it's not because of the data or the mathematics; it's because of fundamentally aesthetic preferences; they just like one arrangement of oranges better than another, so to speak.
So, I have absolutely no idea which, if any of the examples is right, but if one of them is, then it's the right one.

[Belinda]

Skepdick wrote:

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Feb 07, 2021 11:25 am
But, Skepdick, Tillingborn in effect is saying he is a physicalist(materialist). Whether I am a materialist(physicalist) or whether I am an idealist(immaterialist) my belief or uncertainty about gravity or any other scientific theory is unaltered.
Skepdick replied:

Sure, but this puts the discussion exactly in the same place.

Whether you are uncertain about gravity; or you are uncertain about physicality/materiality; or whatever that thing "at the bottom" - it's not the bottom.

Are you as uncertain about "belief" as you are uncertain about "gravity"?

I can't put to the test my 'belief' about what sorts of ontological substances exist, but I can put to the test my 'belief' about gravity. I can explain neither. There you have the advantage of me as you can explain gravity in a selection of ways.

Empirical beliefs can have explanations :ontological beliefs can't be explained. Does this draw a line between that turtle we stand upon, and all the other turtles?

[Skepdick]

I still haven't said that I think any theory is right

Yes, but you implied that people work towards determining whether theories are right or wrong.

Which implies that a theory that is not right today could be right tomorrow.

None of the theories of gravity are right today. I am asking what it would amount to if they were right tomorrow.

, but I suppose I should be flattered that you think I know something that you don't.

You do! You know what the adjectives "right" and "wrong" mean when used to qualify theories.

In much the same way that I think it is simpler to say I know apples fall, I know that some force acts between massive bodies such as apples and planets, that draws them together.

So in that one sentence you have taken it upon yourself to answer the question "WHY do apples fall?". You are well on the way to theorising.
And your theory as to why apples fall no longer speaks of "gravity", it now speaks of "forces".

So I will rephrase my question: Do you believe in "forces"?

Whether or not one or other mathematical treatment of that data is right is besides the point. If you have six oranges, you can call them 1+5, 2x3 or whatever combination you find easiest to work with or you simply like best and they are all right. That's all the meat and potatoes of physics.

Yes, this is underdetermination. But we already covered this. How you fit the Mathematics to the existing data is neither here nor there.

How TODAY's Mathematics fits TOMORROW's data is what we are talking about.

Beyond the capabilities of current technology and off into the forever metaphysical, there are ideas about what causes gravity that are compatible with all of the data: spacetime topology, gravitons, quantum loops, strings etc.

Yes. Today's data, but not tomorrow's data.

If anyone believes in one of those to the exclusion of the others, it's not because of the data or the mathematics; it's because of fundamentally aesthetic preferences; they just like one arrangement of oranges better than another, so to speak.
So, I have absolutely no idea which, if any of the examples is right, but if one of them is, then it's the right one.

Which is why I keep making the point about TOMORROW's data.

The one that makes the least number of predictive errors is the one that's least wrong.

All of your reasoning rests upon time standing still. New models don't arrive daily, but new data does.