Skepticism and Deism - Are they compatable at some level?

Hot topics in delusion and rationalization.
User avatar
Cool Hand
Posts: 9999
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 4:09 pm
Location: Earning my avatar in the rain

Post by Cool Hand »

Hey, can I pat myself on the back and seek a little recognition for being the first person in this thread to mention the word "falsifiable?" I mean, come one, this thread is ultimately about me and how brilliant I am, right?

Cool Hand
....life purpose is pay taxes -- pillory 12/05/13

And you run and you run to catch up with the sun but it's sinking
Racing around to come up behind you again
The sun is the same in a relative way, but you're older
Shorter of breath and one day closer to death.

"Time" -- Pink Floyd
User avatar
livius drusus
Posts: 395
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2004 8:22 am

Post by livius drusus »

DanishDynamite wrote: I had a look at the Popper link (thanks). Yes, this Popper guy does indeed divide the world into "science" and "non-science". As do I.
Have you never encountered Popper before? He's the one who came up with falsifiability as the standard to judge a scientific claim. Perhaps you might be interested in the following overview of the philosophy of science: Introducing Philosophy 6: Philosophy of Science. It was my starting point on the subject and is, I think, a fascinating piece of writing.
However, his view of what is "non-science" encompasses a number of things which I would still categorize as "Science".
Interesting. Such as?
What conclusion are we to draw from this fact?
That falsificationism is as subject to individuals' foundational beliefs as anything else? That you're a Marxist? I give up. :D
User avatar
livius drusus
Posts: 395
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2004 8:22 am

Post by livius drusus »

Cool Hand wrote:Hey, can I pat myself on the back and seek a little recognition for being the first person in this thread to mention the word "falsifiable?" I mean, come one, this thread is ultimately about me and how brilliant I am, right?
It was, but now Popper's upstaged you. ;)
User avatar
Skeeve
Posts: 12724
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 7:35 am

Post by Skeeve »

livius drusus wrote:
Cool Hand wrote:Hey, can I pat myself on the back and seek a little recognition for being the first person in this thread to mention the word "falsifiable?" I mean, come one, this thread is ultimately about me and how brilliant I am, right?
It was, but now Popper's upstaged you. ;)
Yes, he Kant go Hume again, now, can he?
Then Skank Of America could start in...
User avatar
Sundog
Posts: 2576
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 4:27 pm

Post by Sundog »

Stop, Skeeve! My brain is exploding! :lol:
User avatar
livius drusus
Posts: 395
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2004 8:22 am

Re: Skepticism and Deism - Are they compatable at some level

Post by livius drusus »

DanishDynamite wrote:Thanks. I'll have a look at them later. I'm afraid that my interest was dampened significantly when I read that they generally weren't falsifiable. In my view, this automatically makes them a lot of hot air, where no relevance to our Universe can be shown.
Well, I think moral theories are very seriously relevant to our universe. Issues like professional ethics, human rights, political systems, self-examination, etc. form the very boundaries of our humanity. The fact that individual claims in these categories may not be falsifiable says nothing at all to me about their importance.
Finally, something which sounds very interesting. Once again, I'd love a link to this topic. As you mention induction, I hope this isn't just some restatement of the fact that no scientific theory can ever be proven.
Again, I think Hugo Holbling's intro to the philosophy of science might be of use to you in fleshing out Popper's thought and the rebuttals to it.
What if you disagree with my definition of love? Does that mean I don't love my ferret? How is the determination of love an external call?
I splarg my mother. I refuse to provide a proper definition of splarg, but I'll bet you can't show whether I splarg my mother or not.

The above nonsense is how I see your reply above.
You have no definition of love to use as a reference? I find it hard to believe that the word is simply a random combination of letters to you. I haven't defined "definition" either, but you seem to have figured it out anyway.
It seems you've misunderstood my position. I've said that if a proposition isn't falsifiable then it isn't of interest or relevant in any way.
It seems to me that this position quashes the vast majority of human thought, including the notion of falsifiability itself, which has been repeatedly shown to be an insufficient response both to the problem of induction and the demarcation between science and pseudoscience.

For an excellent discussion of the latter issue including multliple references to the way science actually does work, see Imre Lakatos' LSE lecture or pretty much anything at all by Lakatos. I haven't read his classic The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes, but I have read his lectures and absolutely riveting debates via correspondence with Paul Feyerabend in For and Against Method. I cannot recommend it enough.
User avatar
DanishDynamite
Posts: 2608
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 4:58 pm
Location: Copenhagen

Post by DanishDynamite »

Cool Hand wrote:Hey, can I pat myself on the back and seek a little recognition for being the first person in this thread to mention the word "falsifiable?" I mean, come one, this thread is ultimately about me and how brilliant I am, right?

Cool Hand
You have my permission to backslap yourself to your heart's delight. And yes, this thread is "ultimately about me and how brilliant I am".

8)
User avatar
DanishDynamite
Posts: 2608
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 4:58 pm
Location: Copenhagen

Post by DanishDynamite »

livius drusus wrote:
DanishDynamite wrote: I had a look at the Popper link (thanks). Yes, this Popper guy does indeed divide the world into "science" and "non-science". As do I.
Have you never encountered Popper before? He's the one who came up with falsifiability as the standard to judge a scientific claim. Perhaps you might be interested in the following overview of the philosophy of science: Introducing Philosophy 6: Philosophy of Science. It was my starting point on the subject and is, I think, a fascinating piece of writing.
Well, I admit I've heard his name mentioned before, but I've never actually gone looking for his views.
However, his view of what is "non-science" encompasses a number of things which I would still categorize as "Science".
Interesting. Such as?
Gosh, now I have to go read your link again. Moment....

Well, after re-reading, it appears I may be more in line with his view that I had previously gathered. The examples of "non-science" that are given in the article appear to be: Marxism, logic, metaphysics, psychoanalysis, and Adler's individual psychology. I don't agree that metaphysics is non-falsifiable as it is my understanding that materialism is a form of metaphysics, and it is certainly falsifiable. I would also quibble with the inclusion of psychoanalysis depending on the exact definition. I also have a problem with the inclusion of logic.
What conclusion are we to draw from this fact?
That falsificationism is as subject to individuals' foundational beliefs as anything else? That you're a Marxist? I give up. :D
:)

No, we can conclude that certain human endevours have yet to reach the stage where they can make testable claims and as such any claims they make are hot air. This is why people still vote.
User avatar
Win
Posts: 130
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2004 10:26 am

Post by Win »

DD:
I don't agree that metaphysics is non-falsifiable as it is my understanding that materialism is a form of metaphysics, and it is certainly falsifiable.
Really?

How might you go about doing that? Please provide a definition of materialism as part of your response.
User avatar
Skeeve
Posts: 12724
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 7:35 am

Post by Skeeve »

Win wrote:DD:
I don't agree that metaphysics is non-falsifiable as it is my understanding that materialism is a form of metaphysics, and it is certainly falsifiable.
Really?

How might you go about doing that? Please provide a definition of materialism as part of your response.
Indeed, I want him to falsifiably reject ultimate solipcism, that should be an interesting process indeed, if I decide to imagine it. :P
Then Skank Of America could start in...
User avatar
DanishDynamite
Posts: 2608
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 4:58 pm
Location: Copenhagen

Post by DanishDynamite »

Win wrote:DD:
I don't agree that metaphysics is non-falsifiable as it is my understanding that materialism is a form of metaphysics, and it is certainly falsifiable.
Really?

How might you go about doing that? Please provide a definition of materialism as part of your response.
I've provided a definition previously in this thread, Win. Basically, materialism holds that reality is objective, logical, and consistent, and that by accounting for subjective bias, we can extract information about it from our observations.

Hence, if for example consistent reliable observations showed that reality was not logical, this would be a falsification of materialism.
User avatar
DanishDynamite
Posts: 2608
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 4:58 pm
Location: Copenhagen

Post by DanishDynamite »

Skeeve wrote:
Win wrote:DD:
I don't agree that metaphysics is non-falsifiable as it is my understanding that materialism is a form of metaphysics, and it is certainly falsifiable.
Really?

How might you go about doing that? Please provide a definition of materialism as part of your response.
Indeed, I want him to falsifiably reject ultimate solipcism, that should be an interesting process indeed, if I decide to imagine it. :P
Solipsism cannot be rejected based on the tenets of materialism. It can, however, be rejected on the basis of "useless".
User avatar
hammegk
Posts: 15134
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 1:16 pm
Title: Curmudgeon
Location: Hither, sometimes Yon

Post by hammegk »

DanishDynamite wrote:
Hence, if for example consistent reliable observations showed that reality was not logical, this would be a falsification of materialism.
You are wrong. Reality based on the ~material would be more consistent and reliable than materialism/naturalism/whatever-ontology-you choose-to-dismiss. Next you'll be mentioning the "paranormal" or the "supernatural".
The most important things in life–beauty, grace, redemption, compassion, loyalty, love–are beyond the reach of reason. Which doesn’t make them any less real. Stay far back: I'm allergic to Stupid.

The simple rule, the greatest plan, that he should keep who has the power, and he should take who can.

The only enemies of guns: rust ... and politicians.

Philanthropist (n.) - Someone who spends his own money to advance his version of Utopia. Socialist (n.) - Someone who spends your money to advance his version of Utopia.

“Jesus loves the little cheeses, all the cheeses of the world. Swiss and Cheddar, stinky, too. If He loved them, so should you. Jesus loves the little cheeses of the world.”

I'm right 98% of the time; who cares about the other 3%?
User avatar
Skeeve
Posts: 12724
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 7:35 am

Post by Skeeve »

DanishDynamite wrote:Solipsism cannot be rejected based on the tenets of materialism. It can, however, be rejected on the basis of "useless".
Mercy me, now, can we show that useless is, oh, I really don't know, what kind of criterion is useless anyhow?

Are we useless? I'm just wondering to what length useless can be taken.
Then Skank Of America could start in...
User avatar
DanishDynamite
Posts: 2608
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 4:58 pm
Location: Copenhagen

Post by DanishDynamite »

Skeeve wrote:
DanishDynamite wrote:Solipsism cannot be rejected based on the tenets of materialism. It can, however, be rejected on the basis of "useless".
Mercy me, now, can we show that useless is, oh, I really don't know, what kind of criterion is useless anyhow?

Are we useless? I'm just wondering to what length useless can be taken.
It is useless because given the solipsistic view of the "Universe", no further information can be gathered. No laws or principles or theories can be made. The world just is as it is. It isn't objective, it isn't logical, it isn't anything. What happens, happens. There is no rhyme or reason.

It is useless.
User avatar
Skeeve
Posts: 12724
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 7:35 am

Post by Skeeve »

DanishDynamite wrote:
Skeeve wrote:
DanishDynamite wrote:Solipsism cannot be rejected based on the tenets of materialism. It can, however, be rejected on the basis of "useless".
Mercy me, now, can we show that useless is, oh, I really don't know, what kind of criterion is useless anyhow?

Are we useless? I'm just wondering to what length useless can be taken.
It is useless because given the solipsistic view of the "Universe", no further information can be gathered. No laws or principles or theories can be made. The world just is as it is. It isn't objective, it isn't logical, it isn't anything. What happens, happens. There is no rhyme or reason.

It is useless.
Again, what does useless mean? A solipcistic universe could be entirely orderly, controlled, logical, subject to internal theory for all but first cause, and even have a good illusion of first cause, either from a scientific or a spiritual point of view.

Therefore, what is useless. Your argument would seem to extend to the idea that we're all useless.
Then Skank Of America could start in...
User avatar
DanishDynamite
Posts: 2608
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 4:58 pm
Location: Copenhagen

Post by DanishDynamite »

Skeeve wrote:
DanishDynamite wrote:
Skeeve wrote:
DanishDynamite wrote:Solipsism cannot be rejected based on the tenets of materialism. It can, however, be rejected on the basis of "useless".
Mercy me, now, can we show that useless is, oh, I really don't know, what kind of criterion is useless anyhow?

Are we useless? I'm just wondering to what length useless can be taken.
It is useless because given the solipsistic view of the "Universe", no further information can be gathered. No laws or principles or theories can be made. The world just is as it is. It isn't objective, it isn't logical, it isn't anything. What happens, happens. There is no rhyme or reason.

It is useless.
Again, what does useless mean? A solipcistic universe could be entirely orderly, controlled, logical, subject to internal theory for all but first cause, and even have a good illusion of first cause, either from a scientific or a spiritual point of view.
Yes, a solipsicistic universe could be such, but no one would know it was. Such qualities would not be amenable to derivation in a solipstic universe.
Therefore, what is useless. Your argument would seem to extend to the idea that we're all useless.
It is a useless viewpoint becuase nothing of what you said could be derived. No further knowledge could be derived. No predictions could be made. No technology could exist. No science.
User avatar
Skeeve
Posts: 12724
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 7:35 am

Post by Skeeve »

DanishDynamite wrote:Yes, a solipsicistic universe could be such, but no one would know it was. Such qualities would not be amenable to derivation in a solipstic universe.
Good heavens, why not? I, the solipcistic dreamer, imagine a perfectly consistant universe that people inside can probe perfectly consistantly, use mathematics to model, etc.

This is perfectly possible. Why do you claim that any qualities would not be derivable? If course if the dreamer makes them present, they can be derived!
Therefore, what is useless. Your argument would seem to extend to the idea that we're all useless.
It is a useless viewpoint becuase nothing of what you said could be derived. No further knowledge could be derived. No predictions could be made. No technology could exist. No science.
Of course it could.
Then Skank Of America could start in...
User avatar
DanishDynamite
Posts: 2608
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 4:58 pm
Location: Copenhagen

Post by DanishDynamite »

Good heavens, why not? I, the solipcistic dreamer, imagine a perfectly consistant universe that people inside can probe perfectly consistantly, use mathematics to model, etc.
No. Nothing could be probed or investigated in a solipstic universe.
This is perfectly possible. Why do you claim that any qualities would not be derivable? If course if the dreamer makes them present, they can be derived!
Nothing can be derived in a solipstic universe. Look up the meaning, for christ's sake.
Of course it could.
I'm afraid it couldn't. Get back to me when you've understood the solipstic point of view.
User avatar
hammegk
Posts: 15134
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 1:16 pm
Title: Curmudgeon
Location: Hither, sometimes Yon

Post by hammegk »

DanishDynamite wrote: .... Get back to me when you've understood the solipstic point of view.
Who would bother since you obviously have no understanding of the concept? There is nothing that can be negated by solipsism. The best we can do is assume both of us think.
The most important things in life–beauty, grace, redemption, compassion, loyalty, love–are beyond the reach of reason. Which doesn’t make them any less real. Stay far back: I'm allergic to Stupid.

The simple rule, the greatest plan, that he should keep who has the power, and he should take who can.

The only enemies of guns: rust ... and politicians.

Philanthropist (n.) - Someone who spends his own money to advance his version of Utopia. Socialist (n.) - Someone who spends your money to advance his version of Utopia.

“Jesus loves the little cheeses, all the cheeses of the world. Swiss and Cheddar, stinky, too. If He loved them, so should you. Jesus loves the little cheeses of the world.”

I'm right 98% of the time; who cares about the other 3%?