Philosophy Now Forum

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2019 10:14 pmThat is entropy right there...divergence, with the words "divergence" and "entropy" being subject to the same phenomenon they observe.

I'm struggling to make sense of this. Do you mean that, in your view, entropy increases as things diverge?

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2019 10:14 pm...all facts exist through hyptothesis.

Can you give an example of an hypothesis changing a fact?

uwot wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2019 11:22 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2019 10:14 pmThat is entropy right there...divergence, with the words "divergence" and "entropy" being subject to the same phenomenon they observe.

I'm struggling to make sense of this. Do you mean that, in your view, entropy increases as things diverge?

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2019 10:14 pm...all facts exist through hyptothesis.

Can you give an example of an hypothesis changing a fact?

entropy:

"lack of order or predictability; gradual decline into disorder."

Order stems from unity, what is unified becomes disordered through seperation...ie "multiplicity".

Yes:

1. It was once a fact that blood letting solved all (or majority of) illnesses.
2. A hypthosesis was made that bacteria are the result of some illnesses and they must be treated.
3. It is not longer a fact that blood letting solves all (or majority of) illnesses.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2019 11:26 pmentropy:

"lack of order or predictability; gradual decline into disorder."

Order stems from unity, what is unified becomes disordered through seperation...ie "multiplicity".

Fair enough. Thank you.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2019 11:26 pm1. It was once a fact that blood letting solved all (or majority of) illnesses.

Well, some quacks believed it, but it was never a fact that blood letting solved even the majority of illnesses.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2019 11:26 pm2. A hypthosesis was made that bacteria are the result of some illnesses and they must be treated.

'Caused' rather than "are the result of". The hypothesis has been tested sufficiently to establish that it is a fact.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2019 11:26 pm3. It is not longer a fact that blood letting solves all (or majority of) illnesses.

Few people believe it now, but it never was a fact.

uwot wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2019 11:40 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2019 11:26 pmentropy:

"lack of order or predictability; gradual decline into disorder."

Order stems from unity, what is unified becomes disordered through seperation...ie "multiplicity".

Fair enough. Thank you.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2019 11:26 pm1. It was once a fact that blood letting solved all (or majority of) illnesses.

Well, some quacks believed it, but it was never a fact that blood letting solved even the majority of illnesses.

Facts are axioms, axioms are assumed, facts are assumed.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2019 11:26 pm2. A hypthosesis was made that bacteria are the result of some illnesses and they must be treated.

'Caused' rather than "are the result of". The hypothesis has been tested sufficiently to establish that it is a fact.
And under infinite hypothesis, not only are their infinite potential facts but infinite means to interpret them. A test is strictly the creation of a framework to observe a set of relations.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2019 11:26 pm3. It is not longer a fact that blood letting solves all (or majority of) illnesses.

Few people believe it now, but it never was a fact.

See above.

You tell me what a "fact" is?

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2019 11:21 pm

uwot wrote:
In my book hypotheses are interpretations of facts

A hypothesis is a method for obtaining new knowledge from pre existing knowledge
A valid one has to be testable and repeatable and capable of potential falsification
Hypotheses that fail to satisfy these criteria are non scientific and therefore invalid

Yes, but what do scientists base their hypotheses on?

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2019 11:21 pmA falsified hypothesis is not a failure because falsification is the most reliable means for obtaining knowledge
Falsification overcomes the problem of induction because it deals in absolute truth rather than probable truth
A black swan is proof for example that not all swans are white and such a hypothesis never has to be re tested

Spoken like a true Popperian. I made that point in the Thomas Kuhn biography I wrote for the upcoming issue of Philosophy Now. It should be out at the end of the month. It was partly the result of a thread I started a while back:viewtopic.php?f=12&t=25124&start=135 Here's the relevant bit:

In the middle of the 20th century, philosophy of science was almost exclusively focussed on defining the scientific method. The assumption was that ‘science’ is an objective ideal that is independent of human foibles, and that if we could just describe its characteristics, then everyone would have a template for doing proper science. The debate was largely between the logical positivists and Karl Popper. Both took the view that science was a rational endeavour; that scientists would obediently follow where the evidence led them. The difference was that broadly speaking the logical positivists stuck to the traditional view that science was the accumulation of ‘facts’ and the refinement of mathematical models that accounted for those facts with ever increasing accuracy. Their distinctive feature was they insisted that science should stick strictly to observable facts. In a nutshell, the ‘verification principle’ the logical positivists advocated, demanded that anything that could not be supported by empirical evidence was metaphysics and had no place in science. One problem, which in fairness the logical positivists were well aware of, is that no amount of empirical evidence can prove a scientific claim. The classic example is that a million white swans do not prove that every swan is white. Popper’s innovation was to point out that it only takes one black swan to prove they’re not, and that therefore, as an endeavour seeking certainty, science should commit itself to proving theories wrong. So while the evidence could show you what was likely to be true, or definitely false, nearly everyone agreed that the defining feature of science was a commitment to looking at that evidence.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2019 11:42 pmYou tell me what a "fact" is?

The same as the last two times I said it:

uwot wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2019 9:43 pmAny (preferably repeatable) empirical data point.

For example: apples fall from trees to the ground. If you want to get really finicky about it, people report observations of such events. If you want to get really, really finicky: I have the sensation of other people reporting such events. If ya wanna get really, really, really, cor blimey mate, are you taking the piss? finicky: There are sensations of such reports.
Me? I'm happy to stick with apples fall to the ground. Fact.

uwot wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2019 12:06 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2019 11:42 pmYou tell me what a "fact" is?

The same as the last two times I said it:

uwot wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2019 9:43 pmAny (preferably repeatable) empirical data point.

For example: apples fall from trees to the ground. If you want to get really finicky about it, people report observations of such events. If you want to get really, really finicky: I have the sensation of other people reporting such events. If ya wanna get really, really, really, cor blimey mate, are you taking the piss? finicky: There are sensations of such reports.
Me? I'm happy to stick with apples fall to the ground. Fact.

That doesn't make sense.

All empirical data points effectively become abstractions through memory. A fact is strictly a repeated thought form as all empirical phenomena, when observed, are observed in the past (due to light/sound/etc. waves hitting the senses) and compared to past events.

Repetition of abstractions result in facts.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2019 12:10 am A fact is strictly a repeated thought form as all empirical phenomena, when observed, are observed in the past (due to light/sound/etc. waves hitting the senses) and compared to past events.

Hence - the problem of induction. We use past behaviour as predictor for future behaviour. Because we have no better way.

But to avoid Russel's inductivist turkey problem we employ counter-factual reasoning.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2019 12:10 amThat doesn't make sense.

It's basic epistemology. Many moons ago, there was a fella called Descartes. Being a mathematician (he invented Cartesian co-ordinates, dontcha know) he wanted to create a philosophical system based on the axiomatic model of Euclid. But first, he needed a logically watertight axiom on which to build. He thought he'd found it in 'I think, therefore I am', but then along comes Malebranche, who points out that all that is completely and utterly -no fear of any conceivable contradiction- true, is that there is at least one thought.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2019 12:10 amAll empirical data points effectively become abstractions through memory. A fact is strictly a repeated thought form as all empirical phenomena, when observed, are observed in the past (due to light/sound/etc. waves hitting the senses) and compared to past events.

That's very post-modern of you, but regardless of how long ago they happened, I take "empirical phenomena" to be facts.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2019 12:10 amRepetition of abstractions result in facts.

On the contrary, me old china: repetition of facts results in abstractions; at least as I use the terms. It's a question of taste, I suppose, but it does mean we are talking two different languages.

uwot wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2019 8:22 am It's basic epistemology... there was a fella called Descartes. Being a mathematician (he invented Cartesian co-ordinates, dontcha know) he wanted to create a philosophical system based on the axiomatic model of Euclid.

You can CREATE a philosophical/epistemological system based on a model?!? That's very post-modern of you

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Construct ... istemology

Constructivist epistemology is a branch in philosophy of science maintaining that scientific knowledge is constructed by the scientific community, who seek to measure and construct models of the natural world. Natural science therefore consists of mental constructs that aim to explain sensory experience and measurements.

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

Social constructionism is a theory of knowledge in sociology and communication theory that examines the development of jointly constructed understandings of the world that form the basis for shared assumptions about reality. The theory centers on the notion that meanings are developed in coordination with others rather than separately within each individual.[1]

Social constructionism questions what is defined by humans and society to be reality.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_co ... tmodernism

Social constructionism can be seen as a source of the postmodern movement....

Rortian ironism is abound!

Logik wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2019 8:31 amYou can CREATE a philosophical/epistemological system based on a model?!? That's very post-modern of you

Hardly. There are still two basic models: Empiricism and Rationalism. You can chuck in Pragmatism for good measure, but other philosophical isms are some version of one of those, or a blend of them.

uwot wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:30 am

Logik wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2019 8:31 amYou can CREATE a philosophical/epistemological system based on a model?!? That's very post-modern of you

Hardly. There are still two basic models: Empiricism and Rationalism. You can chuck in Pragmatism for good measure, but other philosophical isms are some version of one of those, or a blend of them.

The moment you concede to pragmatism - you concede to subjectivity. If the truth is what works, you must remain silent on the purpose for which something does or does not work (criteria for success/failure).

Of course - that is Rorty's main point anyway. Different goals produce different language.
And that is Feyrabend's point in "against method". Useful things can be discovered in all sorts of a-typical ways.

Empiricism and rationalism are merely in service of pragmatism, but they are not all-exhaustive.

Or the simpleton way of saying this: The most important question is "What do you want and how do you know you have attained it?".
This is where Mark Twain springs to mind.

I can teach anybody how to get what they want out of life. The problem is that I can't find anybody who can tell me what they want.

As I said just yesterday in this very thread:

uwot wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2019 8:09 amWell, I kinda like Feyerabend's Methodological Anarchy, according to which, there is no failure, but at the end of the day, I guess I'm an instrumentalist. Science, in my view, is fundamentally about what the world does, which is demonstrable, rather than what it is, which is always underdetermined and hypothetical-philosophy, in other words. This'll give you an idea of where I'm coming from: https://willybouwman.blogspot.com

uwot wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2019 11:18 am As I said just yesterday in this very thread:

uwot wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2019 8:09 amWell, I kinda like Feyerabend's Methodological Anarchy, according to which, there is no failure, but at the end of the day, I guess I'm an instrumentalist. Science, in my view, is fundamentally about what the world does, which is demonstrable, rather than what it is, which is always underdetermined and hypothetical-philosophy, in other words. This'll give you an idea of where I'm coming from: https://willybouwman.blogspot.com

I think we are agreeing in the most unexpected of ways.

If there is no such thing as "failure" or "wrong" then divorcing ethics from science MAY be an error.

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2019 7:00 am Post-modernism is a blessing in disguise. In showing us that all narratives are equally meaningless it forces us to confront the actual problem.

Human values and morality are more fundamental than narratives or knowledge!

If there is no such thing as "error" then anything goes! There is absolutely no mechanism to filter out the good ideas from the bad...

Which leans towards the realm of Model-dependent realism in that the predictive utility of a model is the only criterion for its validity.

Hence the human problem - 50 models with equivalent predictive utility leads to silly arguments.

uwot wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2019 8:22 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2019 12:10 amThat doesn't make sense.

It's basic epistemology. Many moons ago, there was a fella called Descartes. Being a mathematician (he invented Cartesian co-ordinates, dontcha know) he wanted to create a philosophical system based on the axiomatic model of Euclid. But first, he needed a logically watertight axiom on which to build. He thought he'd found it in 'I think, therefore I am', but then along comes Malebranche, who points out that all that is completely and utterly -no fear of any conceivable contradiction- true, is that there is at least one thought.

Yes there is one thought from which all thoughts come from...space. Empty mind. "I think; therefore I am" can just be reduce to "I am" as "thought" is grounded in the connection and separation of phenomenon which we "assume"...these "assumption" require no thought and effectively equate to empty mindedness...or "point space" where they are effectively just "nothing" in themselves and "everything" through the other axioms.

Look at "empty mindedness is foundation for consciousness" thread.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2019 12:10 amAll empirical data points effectively become abstractions through memory. A fact is strictly a repeated thought form as all empirical phenomena, when observed, are observed in the past (due to light/sound/etc. waves hitting the senses) and compared to past events.

That's very post-modern of you, but regardless of how long ago they happened, I take "empirical phenomena" to be facts.

Putting a "label" on something...is putting a label on it. I don't care if it is "post modern" or not in light of all axiom in science and philosophy effectively projecting to further axioms. This is constant...this is scientific. The projection of one axiom to another grounds consciousness and the phenomena which ground consciousness fundamentally to "space".

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2019 12:10 amRepetition of abstractions result in facts.

On the contrary, me old china: repetition of facts results in abstractions; at least as I use the terms. It's a question of taste, I suppose, but it does mean we are talking two different languages.

If it is a question of "taste" or a question of "language"; then your science is not really truly objective now is it?