Philosophy Now Forum

Posted: **Mon Nov 12, 2018 10:45 pm**

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 12, 2018 10:43 pm No it is not empirically demonstrable because states of mind cannot be subject to the scientific method
Science only deals with observable phenomena so what anyone thinks cannot be independently verified
Psychology is a science but is not as rigorous as other disciples because of the subject matter it deals in

But the decisions (choices) people make are subject to the scientific method. And if somebody keeps telling you that they love vanilla ice cream but keep buying chocolate icecream - what would you conclude about their values?

Actions speak louder than words and all that...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_(statistics)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revealed_preference

There's far too much focus on "rational thought" and not enough on rational action.

Posted: **Mon Nov 12, 2018 11:00 pm**

TimeSeeker wrote:
Can you think of any facts that dont rely on conscious measurement and empiricism and assertion and therefore judgment ?

Every single one that is currently unknown fits this criteria and they will continue to do so unless or until they are finally discovered
Facts are statements of objective truth but there is zero requirement upon them to actually be known in order for them to be true
Everything that is known is merely a sub set of everything that is true and there are exponentially more unknown than known facts

Posted: **Mon Nov 12, 2018 11:05 pm**

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 12, 2018 11:00 pm Every single one that is currently unknown fits this criteria and they will continue to do so unless or until they are finally discovered
Facts are statements of objective truth but there is zero requirement upon them to actually be known in order for them to be true
Everything that is known is merely a sub set of everything that is true and there are exponentially more unknown than known facts

Your argument is oblivious of epistemology. Can you give me an example of an unknown fact?

I am finding it very difficult to conceptualise a fact that is true without it having been measured/tested/validated/asserted/experienced by a human in the context of some observational framework.

You can't even give me a proportion of known to unknown facts... So what is it that you think you know about unknown facts/truths except that you don't know them?

Posted: **Mon Nov 12, 2018 11:31 pm**

TimeSeeker wrote:
But the decisions ( choices ) people make are subject to the scientific method. And if somebody keeps telling you
that they love vanilla ice cream but keep buying chocolate icecream - what would you conclude about their values

That is a very trivial example but what about when there are no clues at all ? What about when there is a deliberate attempt to
deceive but where the intention to do so is only known to the one doing it ? What about when lies and truth co exist and there is
no way of knowing which is which ? What about when the lie is believed because it is so convincing while the truth is not believed
because it is so improbable ? How reliable is the scientific method then ?

Posted: **Mon Nov 12, 2018 11:35 pm**

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 12, 2018 11:31 pm
TimeSeeker wrote:
But the decisions ( choices ) people make are subject to the scientific method. And if somebody keeps telling you
that they love vanilla ice cream but keep buying chocolate icecream - what would you conclude about their values
That is a very trivial example but what about when there are no clues at all ? What about when there is a deliberate attempt to
deceive but where the intention to do so is only known to the one doing it ? What about when lies and truth co exist and there is
no way of knowing which is which ? What about when the lie is believed because it is so convincing while the truth is not believed
because it is so improbable ? How reliable is the scientific method then ?

Creativity in experiment design goes a long way. As do large sample sizes (which reduce the noise/entropy). You just have to ask the right questions to get the information you need.

This is a good read: https://www.amazon.com/How-Measure-Anyt ... B00INUYS2U

Or ask anybody in a long-term relationship how much better they understand their partner than their partner understands themselves.

Posted: **Mon Nov 12, 2018 11:39 pm**

TimeSeeker wrote:
I am finding it very difficult to conceptualise a fact that is true without it having been measured /
tested / validated / asserted / experienced by a human in the context of some observational framework

Do you think facts only become facts when they are discovered ? If you do then what were they before ?
If X has always been true but has never been known to be true does that mean that it cannot be a fact ?

Posted: **Mon Nov 12, 2018 11:40 pm**

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 12, 2018 11:39 pm Do you think facts only become facts when they are discovered ? If you do then what were they before ?
If X has always been true but has never been known to be true does that mean that it cannot be a fact ?

It means you don't know it. And so its factuality is of no significance or consequence.

To you or anybody.

Posted: **Mon Nov 12, 2018 11:50 pm**

TimeSeeker wrote:
You just have to ask the right questions to get the information you need

Why are lie detectors not admissable in a court of law ? Why can psycopaths beat them ? Why can the innocent fail
them ? What number am I thinking of right now ? How do even you know I am thinking of a number ? Are you sure ?

Posted: **Tue Nov 13, 2018 12:02 am**

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 12, 2018 11:50 pm
TimeSeeker wrote:
You just have to ask the right questions to get the information you need
Why are lie detectors not admissable in a court of law ? Why can psycopaths beat them ? Why can the innocent fail
them ? What number am I thinking of right now ? How do even you know I am thinking of a number ? Are you sure ?

You are still focusing all your attention on what goes on in people's heads. It doesn't matter!

Your actions matter. Your actions are a better predictor of your preferences than your 'thoughts' or stated intentions.

http://journal.sjdm.org/14/14130/jdm14130.html

Posted: **Tue Nov 13, 2018 12:14 am**

TimeSeeker wrote:
Your actions are a better predictor of your preferences than your thoughts or words

Actions generally follow thoughts so they are merely different points on the spectrum

Posted: **Tue Nov 13, 2018 12:17 am**

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 13, 2018 12:14 am Actions generally follow thoughts so they are merely different points on the spectrum

It doesn't matter. Science only cares about prediction.

If your shoe color predicts your likelihood to commit murder - so be it! We don't have to understand WHY that is the case... only that it is so.

And so observing actions is a better predictor of preferences than actually asking people directly! Because people don't have a fucking clue how their mind actually works...

If you want to know how I will behave in a certain scenario - ask my girlfriend, not me. She has a much better vantage point.

Posted: **Tue Nov 13, 2018 12:28 am**

TimeSeeker wrote:
And so observing actions is a better predictor of preferences than actually asking people directly
Because people dont have a fucking clue how their mind actually works

It is better to let them explain it perfectly naturally if they want to because asking them might seem like imposition
You cannot tar the entire human race like this because not eveyone is totally clueless about how they actually think

Posted: **Tue Nov 13, 2018 9:56 am**

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 13, 2018 12:28 am
TimeSeeker wrote:
And so observing actions is a better predictor of preferences than actually asking people directly
Because people dont have a fucking clue how their mind actually works
It is better to let them explain it perfectly naturally if they want to because asking them might seem like imposition
You cannot tar the entire human race like this because not eveyone is totally clueless about how they actually think

You are missing the point. An explanation/rationalization (a posteriori) is of no use to anyone. Prediction (a priori) is of use.
And so a priori, past behavior is the best predictor for future behavior. Much better predictor than your self-narrative! This itself is a scientific fact.

That there may be rare individuals for whom this does not apply is neither here nor there. With large cohorts/sample sizes it is a statistical truth.

This is why the insurance industry doesn't take you on your word when they insure you but on your age/lifestyle profile.
This is why anybody who has ran market research knows that what people PROMISE they will buy and what people ACTUALLY buy is so vastly different as to be able to sink businesses who believed empty promises.

Actions speak louder than words. This is why I don't care what you think or say you believe. I only care about how you act in the world.

Posted: **Tue Nov 13, 2018 11:27 am**

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Mon Nov 12, 2018 12:42 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Nov 12, 2018 11:06 am And there's your confusion: 'harm' isn't a property.
Yes it is. As any physician would attest to the physical nature of trauma or clinical death.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Nov 12, 2018 11:06 am It expresses a judgement on an alteration.
Yes. A physical alteration - and therefore a fact.

This is 101 stuff. Of course, trauma or clinical death are physical facts - physical alterations. And we can make falsifiable factual assertions about them. But you call them 'harm', as though what counts as a harm or a benefit is a matter of falsifiable fact. It's not. What we call a harm or a benefit by one criterion we may call a benefit or a harm by another criterion. You're making the same mistake as theists who define a god as a maximally great being - as though greatness is a factual, objective property.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Nov 12, 2018 11:06 am An alteration from being alive to being dead may not be to suffer what we call harm. You just assume that it is, without justification. You smuggle in a value-judgement and pretend it's a fact.
Value judgments are facts. The entire field of experimental psychology deals with it - decision theory! FACTUALLY like vanilla icecream. I FACTUALLY like living and avoiding harm. It is empirically demonstrable to be the case!

Again this is a simple and obvious error. That you like vanilla ice cream may be a fact - a falsifiable factual assertion. But to like or dislike vanilla ice cream isn't to make a factual assertion about a property of some kind. And to say 'this action is harmful / beneficial' is to express an opinion - a judgement - about the action, not to make a factual claim about a property of the action.

My values are facts of reality! Are you saying that's not true? And if so - by what special pleading/artificial taxonomy have you excluded humans from being part of reality?

Same mistake as above. It's the category error you've been making all along.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Nov 12, 2018 11:06 am Same mistake. And 'subjective' means 'relying on judgement, belief or opinion'
Sure. Can you think of any facts that don't rely on conscious measurement, empiricism, assertion and therefore judgment?

Same confusion again. A fact is a true factual assertion - true given the way we use the signs involved - true regardless of what anyone believes or claims to know - and always falsifiable, because it claims something about a feature of reality that may not be the case. If you don't think such things as facts exist, of course we're talking past each other. But if they do, then judgement, belief and opinion have no bearing on their truth - by definition.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Nov 12, 2018 11:06 am Same mistake: 'most humans think that murder is harmful, therefore it's a fact that murder is harmful'. You claim not to care about right and wrong, but then use the words 'harm' and 'harmful' perfectly normally. And to say intersubjective consensus produces objectivity is to ignore the ordinary uses of those words.
And you agreed on numerous occasions that any and all forms of "objectivity" are the product of inter-subjective consensus. So trying to exonerate "objectivity" to some higher status that excludes the inter-subjective (human) element is just special pleading.

No, I've been saying the exact opposite all along. This is your category error at work, as usual.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Nov 12, 2018 11:06 am No good bleating that you can use words any way you like, or that they don't or can't mean what we ordinarily use them to mean. Either clarify the non-standard way you're using them, or don't use them at all.
I use words how I use words. I use words - like I use any tool. In service of my utility-function. What is it that you don't understand that requires clarity?

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Nov 12, 2018 11:06 am The claim that the principle of parsimony confers factuality on simple theories is so full of misconceptions that it's hard to know where to begin. As usual, you disgorge these deepities as though they're indisputable facts.
Show me an "indisputable" fact and I will show you how to dispute it. All "facts" are probabilistic in nature and only subject to "factuality" within a framework of interpretation. None of "scientific facts" are factual if you reject the SI units. Can you convince me WHY I should accept the SI units?
After all - the Kilogram is made up. So is the second.

Try this assertion: all facts are disputable.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Nov 12, 2018 11:06 am No, you really don't understand the issue with logic. Having settled on a set of rules by which we play the game of using language to talk about things - and your favoured constructivist logic is just one such set of rules - we can then follow those rules to make true factual assertions (true given the way we use the signs) or express value-judgements, such as moral judgements. But there's no 'ought' involved in the adoption of a logic. And what you say next demonstrates your misunderstanding.
Ad hominem. I am a rationalist first, logician second. Rules are tools also. We USE rules towards achieving our goals. When the rules fail to get me close to my goal - I update my rules so they work in my favour (except the laws of physics - those are hard to bend). You treat man-made rules like authorities - inflexible and unchangeable.

Not so. But if the rules allow for us to make true factual assertions, to deny that we can is just to reject those rules. And on what grounds do you reject them?

Posted: **Tue Nov 13, 2018 11:40 am**

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Nov 13, 2018 11:27 am greatness is a factual, objective property.
It is a testable property. Either your species will exist in a million years or they won't. If you went extinct - you aren't all that great.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Nov 12, 2018 11:06 am Same mistake as above. It's the category error you've been making all along.

Philosophy Now Forum

What could make morality objective?

Re: What could make morality objective?

Re: What could make morality objective?

Re: What could make morality objective?

Re: What could make morality objective?

Re: What could make morality objective?

Re: What could make morality objective?

Re: What could make morality objective?

Re: What could make morality objective?

Re: What could make morality objective?

Re: What could make morality objective?

Re: What could make morality objective?

Re: What could make morality objective?

Re: What could make morality objective?

Re: What could make morality objective?

Re: What could make morality objective?