Skepticism and Deism - Are they compatable at some level?

Hot topics in delusion and rationalization.
User avatar
DanishDynamite
Posts: 2608
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 4:58 pm
Location: Copenhagen

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

Post by DanishDynamite »

Skeeve wrote:
DanishDynamite wrote:
Skeeve wrote:
DanishDynamite wrote:All feelings are states of mind and there is no reason to suppose that the mind is anything more than a brain process. Hence, if one can define exactly the boundaries whithin which one can be said to be in love, it is in principle possible to test whether that brain-state is currently active.
A feeling is a fickle thing. How can you be sure you haven't changed it while you were testing it?
By doing the math.
Demonstrate, please.
Well, you seem to be worried that any measurement of a brain-state will require accuracies at the quantum level, i.e. the measurement technique might affect the measurement significantly. In order to know whether this is the case, one would need to do the math to find out whether measurements of such an accuracy are neccessary or not.
User avatar
Skeeve
Posts: 13375
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 7:35 am

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

Post by Skeeve »

DanishDynamite wrote: Well, you seem to be worried that any measurement of a brain-state will require accuracies at the quantum level, i.e. the measurement technique might affect the measurement significantly. In order to know whether this is the case, one would need to do the math to find out whether measurements of such an accuracy are neccessary or not.
I see the probe coming down from the ceiling. Might that not change my emotional state of the moment?
Then Skank Of America could start in...
User avatar
DanishDynamite
Posts: 2608
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 4:58 pm
Location: Copenhagen

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

Post by DanishDynamite »

Skeeve wrote:
DanishDynamite wrote: Well, you seem to be worried that any measurement of a brain-state will require accuracies at the quantum level, i.e. the measurement technique might affect the measurement significantly. In order to know whether this is the case, one would need to do the math to find out whether measurements of such an accuracy are neccessary or not.
I see the probe coming down from the ceiling. Might that not change my emotional state of the moment?
Who says you will be seeing a probe? Perhaps you have been given an anesthetic and are not conscious. In any case, why should your current state of fear neccessarily affect your underlying love for ferrets?
User avatar
Sundog
Posts: 2578
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 4:27 pm

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

Post by Sundog »

DanishDynamite wrote: Who says you will be seeing a probe? Perhaps you have been given an anesthetic and are not conscious. In any case, why should your current state of fear neccessarily affect your underlying love for ferrets?
Does love exist when you aren't thinking about it? Does any emotion?
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:
livius drusus wrote:I don't see why it should have to be. Do you apply falsifiability to, for instance, morality issues?
Is there a theory of morality which makes a claim?
All of them make claims of one kind or another, sure.
If so, certainly I would first ask whether it was falsifiable.
Falsifiability applies to factual claims, but not to conceptual ones. For example, the idea that a fetus is a human being is a common moral position that cannot be falsified by factual analysis.
I love my ferrets. That is a claim. Is it empirically falsifiable?
With a sufficiently well defined version of the word "love", I don't see why not, at least in principle.
I'd be curious to see a definition objective enough to render my claim falsifiable. Nomatter what we say "love" is, somebody else will have a different definition; that doesn't mean his claim to love his ferrets is wrong. It is at least subjective, at most intersubjective.
So tell me how you feel exactly. What are the bounderies of this love? Could this love disappear? Under what circumstances might it disappear? Are there graduations of this love or is one simply either in love or not in love? At what point does one know that one is now in love? Etc, etc.
I could answer all these questions and more, but I don't see any of them prove my claim right or wrong. Every one of them is grounded in a number of foundational beliefs which are not falsifiable. Besides, an interrogatory is hardly a empirically sound methodology to determine falsifiability.
Falsifiability is simply not a standard that can be applied to all claims. In those instances, it's falsifiability that is of no relevance.
Convince me.
I'd rather debate you instead, if you don't mind. Your convinctions are yours to keep or discard as you wish.
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:
Skeeve wrote:
DanishDynamite wrote: Well, you seem to be worried that any measurement of a brain-state will require accuracies at the quantum level, i.e. the measurement technique might affect the measurement significantly. In order to know whether this is the case, one would need to do the math to find out whether measurements of such an accuracy are neccessary or not.
I see the probe coming down from the ceiling. Might that not change my emotional state of the moment?
Who says you will be seeing a probe? Perhaps you have been given an anesthetic and are not conscious. In any case, why should your current state of fear neccessarily affect your underlying love for ferrets?
Because the chemical reactions that you believe are the biological facts behind the emotion of love are subject to circumstantial variations and therefore not testable even by your own standards.

Can my love for my ferrets be reproduced under clinical conditions? Is it observable, testable, repeatable? If so, how?
User avatar
Skeeve
Posts: 13375
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 7:35 am

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

Post by Skeeve »

DanishDynamite wrote:Who says you will be seeing a probe? Perhaps you have been given an anesthetic and are not conscious.
We are discussing a product of conciousness, no matter how conciousness arises. If conciousness is not involved, what is "love"

In any case, why should your current state of fear neccessarily affect your underlying love for ferrets?
Why should it not? Perhaps I'm thinking damn! If I didn't love ferrets that drill bit wouldn't be there!
Then Skank Of America could start in...
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 »

Skeeve wrote:Why should it not? Perhaps I'm thinking damn! If I didn't love ferrets that drill bit wouldn't be there!
:lol:
User avatar
DanishDynamite
Posts: 2608
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 4:58 pm
Location: Copenhagen

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

Post by DanishDynamite »

Sundog wrote:
DanishDynamite wrote: Who says you will be seeing a probe? Perhaps you have been given an anesthetic and are not conscious. In any case, why should your current state of fear neccessarily affect your underlying love for ferrets?
Does love exist when you aren't thinking about it? Does any emotion?
I don't see how it could not. Two people in love won't be thinking of each other every second of the day. Sometimes they'll be thinking "I need to take a dump" or "Perhaps I should fill the gas tank as it seems to be running low".
User avatar
Sundog
Posts: 2578
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 4:27 pm

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

Post by Sundog »

DanishDynamite wrote:
Sundog wrote:
DanishDynamite wrote: Who says you will be seeing a probe? Perhaps you have been given an anesthetic and are not conscious. In any case, why should your current state of fear neccessarily affect your underlying love for ferrets?
Does love exist when you aren't thinking about it? Does any emotion?
I don't see how it could not. Two people in love won't be thinking of each other every second of the day. Sometimes they'll be thinking "I need to take a dump" or "Perhaps I should fill the gas tank as it seems to be running low".
Come join us over here and talk about it, so I don't derail this thread...

http://www.skepticalcommunity.com/phpbb ... highlight=
User avatar
DanishDynamite
Posts: 2608
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 4:58 pm
Location: Copenhagen

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

Post by DanishDynamite »

livius drusus wrote:
DanishDynamite wrote:
livius drusus wrote:I don't see why it should have to be. Do you apply falsifiability to, for instance, morality issues?
Is there a theory of morality which makes a claim?
All of them make claims of one kind or another, sure.
All of them? One even exists? Interesting. Could you link one of these theories?
Falsifiability applies to factual claims, but not to conceptual ones. For example, the idea that a fetus is a human being is a common moral position that cannot be falsified by factual analysis.
I don't follow. Once a sufficiently detailed definition of what constitutes a human has been made, a falsifiable theory as to how to test for the presence of a human can be made.
I'd be curious to see a definition objective enough to render my claim falsifiable. Nomatter what we say "love" is, somebody else will have a different definition; that doesn't mean his claim to love his ferrets is wrong. It is at least subjective, at most intersubjective.
No, it means that the word "love" isn't sufficiently well defined.
I could answer all these questions and more, but I don't see any of them prove my claim right or wrong. Every one of them is grounded in a number of foundational beliefs which are not falsifiable. Besides, an interrogatory is hardly a empirically sound methodology to determine falsifiability.
Those questions were an attempt at elliciting a clear definition of the word "love". If you cannot provide one, then what exactly are you talking about? Are you perhaps saying that the term is inherently undefinable?
I'd rather debate you instead, if you don't mind. Your convinctions are yours to keep or discard as you wish.
You made a claim. You said "Falsifiability is simply not a standard that can be applied to all claims.". Prove it.
User avatar
DanishDynamite
Posts: 2608
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 4:58 pm
Location: Copenhagen

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

Post by DanishDynamite »

livius drusus wrote:Because the chemical reactions that you believe are the biological facts behind the emotion of love are subject to circumstantial variations and therefore not testable even by your own standards.
Where did I say that chemical reactions are behind the emotion of love? I simply said that all emotions are a brain state.
Can my love for my ferrets be reproduced under clinical conditions? Is it observable, testable, repeatable? If so, how?
There is no reason to suspect otherwise. Certainly it isn't quite possible technically today, as far as I know, but the realm of the non-materialists continues to decrease in size. Can you give one good reason why this pattern shouldn't continue?
Last edited by DanishDynamite on Thu Jul 01, 2004 4:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
DanishDynamite
Posts: 2608
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 4:58 pm
Location: Copenhagen

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

Post by DanishDynamite »

Skeeve wrote:
DanishDynamite wrote:Who says you will be seeing a probe? Perhaps you have been given an anesthetic and are not conscious.
We are discussing a product of conciousness, no matter how conciousness arises. If conciousness is not involved, what is "love"
Your consciousness is an effect of your brain-state. As long as you aren't braindead, you will have a brain-state. Whether you are currently conscious or not is immaterial.
In any case, why should your current state of fear neccessarily affect your underlying love for ferrets?
Why should it not? Perhaps I'm thinking damn! If I didn't love ferrets that drill bit wouldn't be there!
Makes no difference what you are currently thinking. It's like claiming that a computer couldn't possibly know about Excel as it is currently running Word.
Last edited by DanishDynamite on Thu Jul 01, 2004 5:10 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Sundog
Posts: 2578
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 4:27 pm

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

Post by Sundog »

DanishDynamite wrote: Makes no difference what you are currently thinking. It's like claiming that a computer couldn't possibly know about Excel as it is currently running Word.
But it doesn't!

Not one bit of its resources knows about Excel when it's running Word. At that time Excel only exists in "long term memory". I suppose that's existence in a sense.
User avatar
DanishDynamite
Posts: 2608
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 4:58 pm
Location: Copenhagen

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

Post by DanishDynamite »

Sundog wrote:
DanishDynamite wrote: Makes no difference what you are currently thinking. It's like claiming that a computer couldn't possibly know about Excel as it is currently running Word.
But it doesn't!

Not one bit of its resources knows about Excel when it's running Word. At that time Excel only exists in "long term memory". I suppose that's existence in a sense.
At your request, my cool hippy, I've moved this discussion to your own thread. :)
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:
livius drusus wrote:
DanishDynamite wrote: Is there a theory of morality which makes a claim?
All of them make claims of one kind or another, sure.
All of them? One even exists? Interesting. Could you link one of these theories?
Um, sure.

Hume's moral theory
Virtue theories
Duty theories
Consequentialist theories

Philosophy is absolutely bristling with theories, DD, and yes, they make a wide variety of claims that can be disputed, fought over, modified, bandied about relentlessly, but rarely falsified.

Popperian empiricism, for instance, has been repeatedly shown to be an insufficient solution to the problem of induction, and yet, some people still swear by falsification and most likely always will. Why? Because it has worked for them before, but that only brings us right back to the problem of induction and falsifiability has no answer for it.
Falsifiability applies to factual claims, but not to conceptual ones. For example, the idea that a fetus is a human being is a common moral position that cannot be falsified by factual analysis.
I don't follow. Once a sufficiently detailed definition of what constitutes a human has been made, a falsifiable theory as to how to test for the presence of a human can be made.
Some things are not so easily bound; life is one of them. You're welcome to try, however. Please define a human being and describe the test that determines whether a zygote, embryo and/or fetus qualify.
I'd be curious to see a definition objective enough to render my claim falsifiable. Nomatter what we say "love" is, somebody else will have a different definition; that doesn't mean his claim to love his ferrets is wrong. It is at least subjective, at most intersubjective.
No, it means that the word "love" isn't sufficiently well defined.
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?
Those questions were an attempt at elliciting a clear definition of the word "love". If you cannot provide one, then what exactly are you talking about? Are you perhaps saying that the term is inherently undefinable?
It is definable in emotional, internal terms, but those are not testable.
You made a claim. You said "Falsifiability is simply not a standard that can be applied to all claims.". Prove it.
This discussion is as close as we'll get to "proof" and that's not very close, I'm afraid. Proofs are for mathematics, not philosophy or even science. If you believe all claims can be falsified, feel free to pick one of the simple summaries of moral theories I linked to above and falsify it.

Even Popper himself, the father of falisifiability, did not apply it to non-scientific theories (psychoanalysis and Marxism in particular: see here).
User avatar
DanishDynamite
Posts: 2608
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 4:58 pm
Location: Copenhagen

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

Post by DanishDynamite »

livius drusus wrote:
DanishDynamite wrote:
livius drusus wrote:
DanishDynamite wrote: Is there a theory of morality which makes a claim?
All of them make claims of one kind or another, sure.
All of them? One even exists? Interesting. Could you link one of these theories?
Um, sure.

Hume's moral theory
Virtue theories
Duty theories
Consequentialist theories

Philosophy is absolutely bristling with theories, DD, and yes, they make a wide variety of claims that can be disputed, fought over, modified, bandied about relentlessly, but rarely falsified.
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.
Popperian empiricism, for instance, has been repeatedly shown to be an insufficient solution to the problem of induction, and yet, some people still swear by falsification and most likely always will. Why? Because it has worked for them before, but that only brings us right back to the problem of induction and falsifiability has no answer for it.
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.
I don't follow. Once a sufficiently detailed definition of what constitutes a human has been made, a falsifiable theory as to how to test for the presence of a human can be made.
Some things are not so easily bound; life is one of them. You're welcome to try, however. Please define a human being and describe the test that determines whether a zygote, embryo and/or fetus qualify.
Sorry, why should I define what you mean by human? You define it, I'll make a test to determine whether a sample has the defined properties.
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 made a claim. You said "Falsifiability is simply not a standard that can be applied to all claims.". Prove it.
This discussion is as close as we'll get to "proof" and that's not very close, I'm afraid. Proofs are for mathematics, not philosophy or even science. If you believe all claims can be falsified, feel free to pick one of the simple summaries of moral theories I linked to above and falsify it.
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 now appears that you are asking me to make some irrelevant musings relevant by making them falsifiable.
Even Popper himself, the father of falisifiability, did not apply it to non-scientific theories (psychoanalysis and Marxism in particular: see here).
I'll have a look at it.
User avatar
Skeeve
Posts: 13375
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 7:35 am

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

Post by Skeeve »

DanishDynamite wrote: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.
I believe that this is the bone of contention, at least between you and I.

I submit that if something is not falsifiable, it's not science. I think, or hope, that we agree on that.

I submit, however, that skeptics do not have to be only scientists. They have to be scientists, yes, but not only scientists.

That, in a nutshell, is the kernel of this debate.
Then Skank Of America could start in...
User avatar
DanishDynamite
Posts: 2608
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 4:58 pm
Location: Copenhagen

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

Post by DanishDynamite »

Skeeve wrote:
DanishDynamite wrote: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.
I believe that this is the bone of contention, at least between you and I.
It has been so from the very start.
I submit that if something is not falsifiable, it's not science. I think, or hope, that we agree on that.
We do indeed agree.
I submit, however, that skeptics do not have to be only scientists. They have to be scientists, yes, but not only scientists.
If you mean that they should not always apply the very simple test of falsifiability as the bare minimum, then I disagree.
That, in a nutshell, is the kernel of this debate.
Indeed.
User avatar
DanishDynamite
Posts: 2608
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 4:58 pm
Location: Copenhagen

Post by DanishDynamite »

livius drusus,

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. However, his view of what is "non-science" encompasses a number of things which I would still categorize as "Science".

What conclusion are we to draw from this fact?
User avatar
Cool Hand
Posts: 10000
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: 13375
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: 2578
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: 13375
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: 15132
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: 13375
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: 13375
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: 13375
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: 15132
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%?