Hume: An "Unknown Something" is a Fiction

[Atla]

I understand the urge to dismiss the whole thing. But as often is the case, what is attributed to people VA uses is often qualified or controversial or not clear.

VA doesn't understand nuance and only reacts when ad homs are present, so I have to make very simple claims and also throw in some insults.

I have shown you a '1000' times you are just a philosophical gnat and an Ultracrepidarian in many cases.
It is only those who do not have sound and solid arguments that resort to insults of your kind.

He's also a stunning example of Dunning-Kruger where, after he lost every argument, he thinks he has won 1000s.

[Iwannaplato]

Scientifically illiterate nonsense. There is no reason to think that evolution encoded the "illusion" of the external world, as 100% of science is consistent with a real external world.

And it wouldn't be necessary for evolution to encode an 'illusion' of an external world. All that needs to happen is whatever needs to happen to further survival. Behaviors and traits that work survive. Some kind of philosophical position, right or wrong, is not necessary. Only the behaviors. I love his insistance that a false belief is necessary, otherwise they wouldn't survive. And the silliness of that doesn't seem to strike him.

Sure, a false belief that didn't cause problems might get passed on. But there's no reason an organism would have to have a false belief to survive. That's just goofy.

[Gary Childress]

Scientifically illiterate nonsense. There is no reason to think that evolution encoded the "illusion" of the external world, as 100% of science is consistent with a real external world.

And it wouldn't be necessary for evolution to encode an 'illusion' of an external world. All that needs to happen is whatever needs to happen to further survival. Behaviors and traits that work survive. Some kind of philosophical position, right or wrong, is not necessary. Only the behaviors. I love his insistance that a false belief is necessary, otherwise they wouldn't survive. And the silliness of that doesn't seem to strike him.

Sure, a false belief that didn't cause problems might get passed on. But there's no reason an organism would have to have a false belief to survive. That's just goofy.

I've read that it could very well be that as long as a species can survive, then it will survive. It may not necessarily imply that any particular species has it "100%" right, only that it doesn't have it 100% wrong. I have heard that there are aspects of the world that are very much mystifying to human cognition. From the sounds of it, personally, I'm not so sure they will ever not be. I don't think scientists are any more capable of being gurus than philosophers. But at least the philosophy I learned taught me that caution and patience may be attributes that are also warranted. Of course, such things as caution and patience are not always easy when "competing" for research funding or tenure positions. So there's that too.

¯\_(*_*)_/¯

[Iwannaplato]

I've read that it could very well be that as long as a species can survive, then it will survive. It may not necessarily imply that any particular species has it "100%" right, only that it doesn't have it 100% wrong.

That's my take. As long as whatever traits and behaviors it has lead to good enough lives, they manage to procreate and survive. So, even things that aren't useful can get passed on.

I have heard that there are aspects of the world that are very much mystifying to human cognition. From the sounds of it, personally, I'm not so sure they will ever not be. I don't think scientists are any more capable of being gurus than philosophers. But at least the philosophy I learned taught me that caution and patience may be attributes that are also warranted. Of course, such things as caution and patience are not always easy when "competing" for research funding or tenure positions. So there's that too.

I think when they stick to we did this and this happened (again and again) so we are using this model until we find something that doesn't fit with it (again and again)...kind of thinking they're fine. But once they use their models to judge and rule out they are going too far.

[Gary Childress]

I've read that it could very well be that as long as a species can survive, then it will survive. It may not necessarily imply that any particular species has it "100%" right, only that it doesn't have it 100% wrong.

That's my take. As long as whatever traits and behaviors it has lead to good enough lives, they manage to procreate and survive. So, even things that aren't useful can get passed on.

I have heard that there are aspects of the world that are very much mystifying to human cognition. From the sounds of it, personally, I'm not so sure they will ever not be. I don't think scientists are any more capable of being gurus than philosophers. But at least the philosophy I learned taught me that caution and patience may be attributes that are also warranted. Of course, such things as caution and patience are not always easy when "competing" for research funding or tenure positions. So there's that too.

I think when they stick to we did this and this happened (again and again) so we are using this model until we find something that doesn't fit with it (again and again)...kind of thinking they're fine. But once they use their models to judge and rule out they are going too far.

Sure, the question then becomes, can they be put back on the right track? Doesn't it? (At least it does for me.)

[Iwannaplato]

Sure, the question then becomes, can they be put back on the right track? Doesn't it? (At least it does for me.)

Some are. But in general, I have to say I'm pessimistic.

[Gary Childress]

Sure, the question then becomes, can they be put back on the right track? Doesn't it? (At least it does for me.)

Some are. But in general, I have to say I'm pessimistic.

Fair enough.