Philosophy Now Forum

So says our philosophical science correspondent Massimo Pigliucci.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/74/Hypotheses_Forget_About_It

I'm not interested in the question of a hypothesis as a basis for science, although I think one is inevitable when any new phenomenon is being examined. As far as I can see, the only difference between a model and a hypothesis is semantic.

There is something much more serious and dangerous in this article however. It is an idea that has come to prevail in both science and philosophy, in the form of extreme skepticism. I give the following as an example:

... there is no way to conclusively prove a hypothesis correct ....

... hypotheses cannot be decisively disproved either.

If these were true, of course, it would mean nothing could ever be proved or known to be true.

Though widely taught, believed, and accepted, this cynical view of reality and the ability of the human mind to comprehend that reality is totally false. Almost every minute of a modern human being's life disproves the lie of extreme Skepticism.

The cure of every disease with the use of antibiotics, every operation performed painlessly by the use of anesthesia, and every life saved by blood transfusions is evidence of what were once biological hypotheses that have been proven. Heavier-than-air flight, radio, television, cell phones, and communication satellites are proof of things once largely debated and doubted by scientists which have now all been proved. Almost the entire field of chemistry is a witness book of hypotheses proven and recorded in what we call the periodic table.

The truth is humans being could hardly survive a day if all they did was not determined by choices based on what they know is true.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat May 18, 2019 8:21 pm The truth is humans being could hardly survive a day if all they did was not determined by choices based on what they know is true.

Is that true?

Homo Sapiens has been around for about 100000 years. We got science/medicine in the last 400? 500?

Of course, we are surviving somewhat better having amassed some know-how about the inner workings of things, but large part of our survival now and then is sheer luck.

Philosophy Now wrote: ↑Sat May 18, 2019 5:56 pm So says our philosophical science correspondent Massimo Pigliucci.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/74/Hyp ... t_About_It

Massimo says "Half of the problem with hypotheses was mentioned above: there is no way to conclusively prove a hypothesis correct, because there is always the possibility that a new set of observations will disprove it."

But why is that a problem? I am sure Kuhn had no problem with that. Nor do most scientists. If philosophers consider it to be a fundamental problem, then they don't understand science... and probably a lot more besides.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat May 18, 2019 8:21 pm

... hypotheses cannot be decisively disproved either.

The truth is humans being could hardly survive a day if all they did was not determined by choices based on what they know is true.

Not at all.

Humans can survive very well if all they do is determined by choices based on what they know.

'Truth' has nothing to do with it.

Univalence wrote: ↑Sat May 18, 2019 8:46 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat May 18, 2019 8:21 pm The truth is humans being could hardly survive a day if all they did was not determined by choices based on what they know is true.

Is that true?

Yes, it is true. No matter how little or how much a human being knows, since he must choose everything he does, he must base his choices on whatever knowledge he has. When choosing what to eat he must know which things are food and which are poison. Ignorance in such cases means death, for example. The success of human beings in all ages depended on the extent of their knowledge. Ignorance meant failure.

Homo Sapiens has been around for about 100000 years. We got science/medicine in the last 400? 500?

Of course, we are surviving somewhat better having amassed some know-how about the inner workings of things, but large part of our survival now and then is sheer luck.

Those who depend on luck and not knowledge deserve what they get. Human success is hardly a matter of luck. I quote from here:

"In the entire history of the world every advance in civilization, every gain in knowledge, and every improvement in the human condition has come solely through the efforts of independent individualists. They and they alone are the creators, innovators, and discoverers of the world. These men are all there is of positive importance in all of history; all the rest, the tyrants, the dictators, the famines and plagues, earthquakes, floods, the mass of ignorant and superstitious humanity, the crimes and the wars were important only in the negative."

The linked article is my proof.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun May 19, 2019 1:38 am

Univalence wrote: ↑Sat May 18, 2019 8:46 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat May 18, 2019 8:21 pm The truth is humans being could hardly survive a day if all they did was not determined by choices based on what they know is true.

Is that true?

Yes, it is true. No matter how little or how much a human being knows, since he must choose everything he does, he must base his choices on whatever knowledge he has. When choosing what to eat he must know which things are food and which are poison. Ignorance in such cases means death, for example. The success of human beings in all ages depended on the extent of their knowledge. Ignorance meant failure.

Homo Sapiens has been around for about 100000 years. We got science/medicine in the last 400? 500?

Of course, we are surviving somewhat better having amassed some know-how about the inner workings of things, but large part of our survival now and then is sheer luck.

Those who depend on luck and not knowledge deserve what they get. Human success is hardly a matter of luck. I quote from here:

"In the entire history of the world every advance in civilization, every gain in knowledge, and every improvement in the human condition has come solely through the efforts of independent individualists. They and they alone are the creators, innovators, and discoverers of the world. These men are all there is of positive importance in all of history; all the rest, the tyrants, the dictators, the famines and plagues, earthquakes, floods, the mass of ignorant and superstitious humanity, the crimes and the wars were important only in the negative."

The linked article is my proof.

So you say that humans must make choices that are not detrimental to their wellbeing (like eating poisonous food).

You further say that those who make ignorant choices must suffer the consequences.

And then you quoted Marie Curie, who died of radiation exposure, by virtue of being ignorant of radiation’a deadly effects on the human body.

Is that intentional?

Univalence wrote: ↑Sun May 19, 2019 5:09 am So you say that humans must make choices that are not detrimental to their wellbeing (like eating poisonous food).

You further say that those who make ignorant choices must suffer the consequences.

And then you quoted Marie Curie, who died of radiation exposure, by virtue of being ignorant of radiation’a deadly effects on the human body.

Is that intentional?

Is which intentional? Marie's experiments with radium were certainly intentional. The consequences of those experiments were the result of her ignorance, which of course was not intentional. Acting contrary to the nature of reality is always disastrous whether intentional or not.

By-the-way, your summary of my view and use of Marie Curie as an example is exactly right. I appreciate your understanding, if not your agreement.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun May 19, 2019 2:49 pm Is which intentional?

Your reference to Marie Curie. Which can be interpreted as either a supporting; or a self-defeating argument for your position.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun May 19, 2019 2:49 pm Marie's experiments with radium were certainly intentional. The consequences of those experiments were the result of her ignorance, which of course was not intentional. Acting contrary to the nature of reality is always disastrous whether intentional or not.

We are on the same page. But then this makes no sense to me:

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun May 19, 2019 2:49 pm Those who depend on luck and not knowledge deserve what they get. Human success is hardly a matter of luck.

Are we meant to interpret your reference to Marie Curie as a paragon for the success of human knowledge (because of her contributions to science); or as a paragon for the failure of human ignorance (because of her ignorant death) ?

Was Marie Currie lucky; knowledgeable; ignorant; unlucky or something else?

Univalence wrote:
Are we meant to interpret your reference to Marie Curie as a paragon for the success of human knowledge ( because
of her contributions to science ) or as a paragon for the failure of human ignorance ( because of her ignorant death )

She was obviously both so there is no need to present it as a simple binary option
She advanced human knowledge greatly while also dying as a result of ignorance

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sun May 19, 2019 3:30 pm She was obviously both so there is no need to present it as a simple binary option
She advanced human knowledge greatly while also dying as a result of ignorance

I didn't present it as a binary. Hence me pointing out that Homo Sapiens made it 100000 relying primarily on luck.
Knowledge came in recent years.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun May 19, 2019 1:38 am Those who depend on luck and not knowledge deserve what they get. Human success is hardly a matter of luck.

In 2019 human beings still depend primarily on luck, together with some minimal knowledge.

Univalence wrote:
Knowledge came in recent years

Knowledge acquisition has always existed or else we would be extinct long before now like any species would
We may still be ignorant but complete ignorance and survival of the human race are not mutually compatible

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sun May 19, 2019 4:23 pm Knowledge acquisition has always existed or else we would be extinct long before now like any species would

If surviving natural selection is how you measure a species' acquired knowledge then I am afraid you have to give first prize to the jellyfish.

They have avoided extinction for 500 million years.

Univalence wrote:
If surviving natural selection is how you measure a species acquired knowledge then I am afraid you have to give first prize to the jellyfish

They have avoided extinction for 500 million years

A jellyfish only needs to know how to propagate its genes to survive and how to avoid any predators
They dont have a curiosity for knowledge unrelated to their existence the same way that humans do

We have a highly developed brain which is the most complex thing in the observable Universe and so need to utilise it more
But as we actually share the same ancestry with jellyfish that we do with all biological organisms this is somewhat academic

All animals and plants are descended from single cell non self replicating bacteria which was the first and simplest ever life form
What we are then is basically advanced bacteria that has had nearly four billion years to reach the stage of evolution it is at today

Now you can split up jellyfish and human beings and put them into different categories but reality actually exists on a single continuous spectrum

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sun May 19, 2019 9:35 pm A jellyfish only needs to know how to propagate its genes to survive

Precisely.

Hence: you don't need knowledge to survive. But you need to survive to acquire knowledge.

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sun May 19, 2019 9:35 pm They dont have a curiosity for knowledge unrelated to their existence the same way that humans do

And they don't need to.

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sun May 19, 2019 9:35 pm We have a highly developed brain which is the most complex thing in the observable Universe

That's a trivially refutable claim.

The brain is part of the human body. If the brain is complex then the human body is more complex.