How Science Works

[Oso]

I know, I know, a pretentious title, but I just got around to reading the August 2nd Science News. The first article is about dark energy, the recently (2001) discovered mysterious substance that appears to be ripping the cosmos apart.

The article has a quote from one of the coauthors of one of four studies that confirm the initial findings made in 2001. "Since the implications of dark energy are so profound for physics, having multiple, independent lines of evidence for its existence is absolutely essential," says Joshua A. Frieman of the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory in Batavia, Ill., a coauthor of one of four dark-energy studies recently posted online.

http://www.sciencenews.org/20030802/fob1.asp (You may have to have a subscription to Science News to see this, but it'll be the best money you'll spend this year.)

Not only does this give an example of what so many here at JREF continually harp on, it also shows that, if it is verified and validated, scientist can't wait to jump on board no matter how bizarre the implications are. This is how science works and this is why science works.

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by Oso


Not only does this give an example of what so many here at JREF continually harp on, it also shows that, if it is verified and validated, scientist can't wait to jump on board no matter how bizarre the implications are. This is how science works and this is why science works.

Unless the implications suggest that fundamental metaphysical assumptions may have to be questioned. I don't think as many would jump on board then.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Oso
The first article is about dark energy, the recently (2001) discovered mysterious substance that appears to be ripping the cosmos apart.
Ripping the cosmos apart?!?!?! Oh NO!

Quick, put out a broadband inverse tachyon pulse through the main deflector array!

Whew, that was a close one......

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

David, what are these fundamental metaphysical assumptions to which you refer? Give us the short list.

~~ Paul

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
David, what are these fundamental metaphysical assumptions to which you refer? Give us the short list.

~~ Paul

None specifically. I was saying that if observations were to question metapysical assumptions I reckon those observations would not be taken up so quickly even if many repeated similar observations were made.

[Stimpson J. Cat]

davidsmith,

Unless the implications suggest that fundamental metaphysical assumptions may have to be questioned. I don't think as many would jump on board then.

Which fundamental metaphysical assumptions would those be? Unlike the case prior to Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity, there is no longer any "orthodox metaphysical scientific view".

Different scientists have different metaphysical interpretations of reality. Many (like myself) have none at all, and reject metaphysics as nonsensical. Even among those who do, though, I think that the vast majority of them are open-minded enough to change their metaphysical views if the evidence is no longer consistent with them.

Your view of scientists as dogmatic fundamentalists who reject any evidence that doesn't fit their worldview, simply isn't supported by the facts. The fact is that, in a relatively short period of time, scientists came to accept the findings of both GR and QM, even though they seriously conflicted with the metaphysical beliefs of the time. And scientists of today, having learned from that lesson, are even less dogmatic now than they were then.


Dr. Stupid

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat
davidsmith,

Different scientists have different metaphysical interpretations of reality. Many (like myself) have none at all, and reject metaphysics as nonsensical.

Thats funny. I could swear you have made multiple references to your metaphysical assumption that reality is objective.

here's just one quote:

Stimpy: "I also specifically stated that it is necessary to make at least some assumptions about the nature of reality, in order to actually be able to learn anything about it from our observations."

I'm sick of your constant contradictions Stimp.

[Stimpson J. Cat]

davidsmith,

Thats funny. I could swear you have made multiple references to your metaphysical assumption that reality is objective.

It's not metaphysical because it is verifiable. I have explained this to you before. The premises of science, of which objectivity is one, constitute a falsifiable, and thus verifiable, framework.

At this point you are probably getting ready to spout off again about how objectivity as you define it is not a necessary premise of science. But since you know perfectly well that I do not define objectivity that way, any attempt on your part to claim that my quote is referring to your concept of objectivity, is blatantly dishonest.

I'm sick of your constant contradictions Stimp.

And I am sick of your constant attempts to twist my words around and misrepresent my position.


Dr. Stupid

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat
davidsmith,

It's not metaphysical because it is verifiable. I have explained this to you before. The premises of science, of which objectivity is one, constitute a falsifiable, and thus verifiable, framework.


Dr. Stupid


Stimpy: "I also specifically stated that it is necessary to make at least some assumptions about the nature of reality, in order to actually be able to learn anything about it from our observations."


If you make an assumption about the nature of reality that is a metaphysical assumption. Are you saying that you can verify the nature of reality through science ?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

David said:If you make an assumption about the nature of reality that is a metaphysical assumption. Are you saying that you can verify the nature of reality through science ?
You can verify epistemological assumptions. Or at least you can watch and see if your assumptions are discredited.

What you cannot verify is ontological/metaphysical assumptions. And so it is best to make none, except while playing board games.
~~ Paul

[Stimpson J. Cat]

davidsmith,

Stimpy: "I also specifically stated that it is necessary to make at least some assumptions about the nature of reality, in order to actually be able to learn anything about it from our observations."

If you make an assumption about the nature of reality that is a metaphysical assumption. Are you saying that you can verify the nature of reality through science ?

I am saying that the set of assumptions about the nature of reality that I make, as a whole, constitute a falsifiable theory, and can thus be verified through science.

I have explained this to you before.

Dr. Stupid

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat
davidsmith,



I am saying that the set of assumptions about the nature of reality that I make, as a whole, constitute a falsifiable theory, and can thus be verified through science.

I have explained this to you before.

Dr. Stupid

What marvelous circular reasoning. Your set of assumptions are those that you say are the minimal requirement for the scientific method to be valid and then go on to use the same set of assumptions to verify their own framework

priceless :D

[Stimpson J. Cat]

davidsmith,

What marvelous circular reasoning. Your set of assumptions are those that you say are the minimal requirement for the scientific method to be valid and then go on to use the same set of assumptions to verify their own framework

The very fact that you think this is circular reasoning clearly demonstrates that you have no idea what is meant by verification.

Circular reasoning is when you assume what you are trying to prove. I am not claiming to be able to prove that my assumptions are true. I freely admit that I cannot.

What I am claiming is that the set of assumptions I have made, when taken together, constitute a falsifiable theory. In principle, if any of those assumptions are false, then it could be possible for us to make observations which are unambiguously inconsistent with the theory.

That is what is meant by verification. The scientific framework is verifiable. That means that it is an epistemological framework, not a metaphysical one, and that the minimal set of assumptions necessary to construct that framework are not epistemological assumptions, not metaphysical assumptions.


Dr. Stupid

[Darat]

Originally posted by davidsmith73


What marvelous circular reasoning. Your set of assumptions are those that you say are the minimal requirement for the scientific method to be valid and then go on to use the same set of assumptions to verify their own framework

priceless :D

Lets take a starting point, for example, "Apples are red", that is an assumption, now I can say "If I find an apple that isn't red then my assumption was wrong", not circular reasoning at all, just an inherently checkable testable statement. (Of course it is a “one white crow”.)

Stimpy's position seems to be in keeping with the apple example.

Now of course you can expand the definition of metaphysics to include any and all of these types of assumptions, but then all you are saying is "everything is metaphysics". Nothing wrong with that but you've then defined it so broadly then it isn't even worth stating.

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat
davidsmith,


Circular reasoning is when you assume what you are trying to prove. I am not claiming to be able to prove that my assumptions are true. I freely admit that I cannot.

In that case you have made metaphysical assumptions.

What I am claiming is that the set of assumptions I have made, when taken together, constitute a falsifiable theory. In principle, if any of those assumptions are false, then it could be possible for us to make observations which are unambiguously inconsistent with the theory.


So which predictions does this "reality" theory make ?

if reality is not logical we would expect to make illogical observations.

If reality is not consistent we would expect to make inconsistent observations

If reality is not objective (only your own experiences) then I have no idea what observations you would expect to make.

help me out.




That is what is meant by verification. The scientific framework is verifiable. That means that it is an epistemological framework, not a metaphysical one, and that the minimal set of assumptions necessary to construct that framework are not epistemological assumptions, not metaphysical assumptions.


Dr. Stupid

yet you have clearly made these metaphysical assumptions to begin with. Assumptions about the nature of reality:

Reality is logical
Reality is consistent
Reality is objective (there is more to it than just ones own experiences - just to clarify ;) )

you say the entire framework transforms the assumptions from metaphysical ones into epistemological ones. What you fail to understand is that the framework is based on metaphysical assumptions about the nature of reality.

Your axioms are the founding principles of your framework. They cannot be the conclusion.

[Stimpson J. Cat]

davidsmith,

So which predictions does this "reality" theory make ?

if reality is not logical we would expect to make illogical observations.

Wrong. If reality is not logical, then we cannot have any expectations about our observations at all. We could observe anything.

If reality is not consistent we would expect to make inconsistent observations

Ditto here. If reality is not consistent, then we cannot have any expectations about our observations.

If reality is not objective (only your own experiences) then I have no idea what observations you would expect to make.

Exactly the point. If we do not assume that reality is objective, then we cannot make any logical predictions about what we expect to observe.

Once again, you have got the idea of falsifiability mixed up. We do not falsify a theory by saying what we expect to see if it is false, and then looking for that. We falsify it by saying what we expect to see if it is true, and then if we see anything else, the theory is falsified.

None of the three axioms are individually falsifiable. It is only when you take all three together that you can make logical claims about what you expect reality to behave like. Specifically, that you expect to be able to successfully model it scientifically.

Failure of reality to meet those expectations would constitute falsification of the set of axioms. We would have no way of knowing which of them is false. Maybe reality is objective and logical, but not consistent. Maybe it is logical and consistent, but not objective. Maybe it is none of the above. There is no way to tell. But we will have clearly determined that they cannot all be true.

That is how all scientific theories work. No individual claim of a theory is falsifiable, because when taken alone, you can always invent ad-hoc hypotheses to explain away any observation you make. It is only the complete theory which is falsifiable.

That is what is meant by verification. The scientific framework is verifiable. That means that it is an epistemological framework, not a metaphysical one, and that the minimal set of assumptions necessary to construct that framework are not epistemological assumptions, not metaphysical assumptions.

Dr. Stupid
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

yet you have clearly made these metaphysical assumptions to begin with. Assumptions about the nature of reality:

Reality is logical
Reality is consistent
Reality is objective (there is more to it than just ones own experiences - just to clarify )

you say the entire framework transforms the assumptions from metaphysical ones into epistemological ones. What you fail to understand is that the framework is based on metaphysical assumptions about the nature of reality.

Nonsense. The framework is falsifiable. That makes the assumptions verifiable. They are thus no longer metaphysical. Not unless, as Darat suggested, you define any claim about the nature of reality, verifiable or not, to be metaphysical. If so, then everything is metaphysical, and the point is moot.

Your axioms are the founding principles of your framework. They cannot be the conclusion.

They are not the conclusion. The conclusion is that, so far, reality seems to be consistent with the predictions of that framework. Since we would have no reason to expect this to be the case if the axioms of the framework were false, we can accept this as supporting evidence for the framework (not proof).

That is all I am claiming. I am claiming that the fact that science demonstrably does work, constitutes supporting evidence for the hypothesis that the axioms of science are valid.

Is that really so difficult to understand?


Dr. Stupid

[Oso]

Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat
...If we do not assume that reality is objective, then we cannot make any logical predictions about what we expect to observe.
...
Dr. Stupid davidsmith,

As usual Stimpy cuts directly to it. My question is, what's the alternative? Forty or so years ago, when I was a wide-eyed college student, even though my majors were in math and the "hard" sciences, I was still fascinated by the possibilities of shortcuts to understanding the fundamental nature of the universe. Perhaps if I meditated properly, followed the right path (or took the right perception enhancers) it would be revealed to me. But you know what, the bottom line turned out to be that it's not easy, IT'S HARD.

Fortunately there have been plenty of searchers that were and still are, willing and capable (thank you stimpy, et al) of taking this journey, and the results have been simply phenomenal. The things we have discovered in the last hundred years are so astounding they could not have even been imaged by ANYONE a hundred years ago!

On the other hand it appears that the only thing that has happened in the progress of mysticism, the occult etc. in the last few thousand years, is that, if they do infringe on the real world, it is even less than suspected even 40 years ago.

I'm not interested in any kind of debate, I'm just wondering, what are the axioms that would have given better results?

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat
davidsmith,

Wrong. If reality is not logical, then we cannot have any expectations about our observations at all. We could observe anything.

Ever taken LSD? There aslo are more powerful hallucagens out there than that. You do not always observe logical relationships. It appears as if we can observe anything.


Ditto here. If reality is not consistent, then we cannot have any expectations about our observations.

Ditto my above reply.


Exactly the point. If we do not assume that reality is objective, then we cannot make any logical predictions about what we expect to observe.

This is just not true. You have implicitly included in the above, the assumption that any aspect of reality exists in the absense of an experience of it. I have told you before that you have done this.


Once again, you have got the idea of falsifiability mixed up. We do not falsify a theory by saying what we expect to see if it is false, and then looking for that. We falsify it by saying what we expect to see if it is true, and then if we see anything else, the theory is falsified.

Ok, so what are your predictiona about reality from your framework ? That we should observe it to be logical and consistent. Hallucinations, for one thing, tell us that we observe something that is not those things. Thus your framework appears to be falsified.


None of the three axioms are individually falsifiable. It is only when you take all three together that you can make logical claims about what you expect reality to behave like. Specifically, that you expect to be able to successfully model it scientifically.

What you expect reality to behave like or what you expect your observations to behave like ?


Failure of reality to meet those expectations would constitute falsification of the set of axioms.

Hallucinations.


We would have no way of knowing which of them is false. Maybe reality is objective and logical, but not consistent. Maybe it is logical and consistent, but not objective. Maybe it is none of the above. There is no way to tell. But we will have clearly determined that they cannot all be true.

Done !

[Stimpson J. Cat]

davidsmith,

Wrong. If reality is not logical, then we cannot have any expectations about our observations at all. We could observe anything.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ever taken LSD? There aslo are more powerful hallucagens out there than that. You do not always observe logical relationships. It appears as if we can observe anything.

Yes, I have hallucinated before. And doing so killed any naive preconceptions I may have had about subjective experiences being reliable.

This is exactly why we need the assumption of an objective reality. If you assume that reality is just your observations, then the assumption of it being logical and consistent goes right out the window. The only way that reality can possibly be logical and consistent, is if there is more to it than just your own experiences, and that in fact your experiences are an imperfect source of information about it. The entire scientific method starts with this, and then goes about devising ways to control for this subjective bias, and extract reliable information from our observations.

Once again, you have got the idea of falsifiability mixed up. We do not falsify a theory by saying what we expect to see if it is false, and then looking for that. We falsify it by saying what we expect to see if it is true, and then if we see anything else, the theory is falsified.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ok, so what are your predictiona about reality from your framework ? That we should observe it to be logical and consistent. Hallucinations, for one thing, tell us that we observe something that is not those things. Thus your framework appears to be falsified.

No, because my framework acknowledges that there is more to reality than just my experiences. That allows me to construct falsifiable hypotheses to explain things like hallucination, optical illusions, subjective bias, and so forth.

Without the assumption of objectivity, this would be impossible. Science would be dead before it ever even got started.

None of the three axioms are individually falsifiable. It is only when you take all three together that you can make logical claims about what you expect reality to behave like. Specifically, that you expect to be able to successfully model it scientifically.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What you expect reality to behave like or what you expect your observations to behave like ?

I expect to be able to construct logical, falsifiable explanations for anything I observe. So far, this expectation has been met. There is no known observable phenomenon for which we can claim that no scientific explanation is possible.

Failure of reality to meet those expectations would constitute falsification of the set of axioms.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hallucinations.

Hallucinations have a scientific explanation. Without the assumption of objectivity they could not, and science would be falsified.

We would have no way of knowing which of them is false. Maybe reality is objective and logical, but not consistent. Maybe it is logical and consistent, but not objective. Maybe it is none of the above. There is no way to tell. But we will have clearly determined that they cannot all be true.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Done !

Exactly. You have proven my point for me. Without the axiom of objectivity, the scientific method would be invalid. Therefore the assumption of objectivity is a necessary assumption for the validity of science. That means that the fact that the scientific method has, in spite of very extensive testing, never been shown to be invalid, constitutes supporting evidence for the hypothesis that the axioms of science, including the axiom of objectivity, are valid.


Dr. Stupid

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat
davidsmith,



Yes, I have hallucinated before. And doing so killed any naive preconceptions I may have had about subjective experiences being reliable.

Who said anythng about reliability ? I gave the example of a hallucination to show you that there are instances of our observations being something other than logical.


Stimpy: Wrong. If reality is not logical, then we cannot have any expectations about our observations at all. We could observe anything.

Me: Ever taken LSD? There aslo are more powerful hallucagens out there than that. You do not always observe logical relationships. It appears as if we can observe anything.

Stimpy: This is exactly why we need the assumption of an objective reality. If you assume that reality is just your observations, then the assumption of it being logical and consistent goes right out the window. The only way that reality can possibly be logical and consistent, is if there is more to it than just your own experiences, and that in fact your experiences are an imperfect source of information about it. The entire scientific method starts with this, and then goes about devising ways to control for this subjective bias, and extract reliable information from our observations.

You have just described an unfalsifiable postion - exactly the opposite to what you claimed originally. You are selecting the correct observations are applicable to compare to the predictions of your reality "theory" and ignoring the rest by saying they are not "objective". Therefore as long as our observations contain at least some amount of consistency and logical structure you will be able to claim that your framework has been supported with observations but at the same time you ignore the observations that do not fit !

Like you said, you falsify your framework by saying what we expect to see if it is true (logical observations) and then if we see anything else, it is falsified. We DO see something else in the form of hallucinations. Hallucinations do not follow a logical or consistent structure. Its ludicrous to say that these observations don't count because they are not objective because for an observation to be objective it must be logical and consistent ! This means that in effect, you can ignore ANY observations that are not logical or consistent by saying they are not objective. Therefore your framework is unfalsifiable and as such is metaphysical.


No, because my framework acknowledges that there is more to reality than just my experiences. That allows me to construct falsifiable hypotheses to explain things like hallucination, optical illusions, subjective bias, and so forth.

Without the assumption of objectivity, this would be impossible. Science would be dead before it ever even got started.

erm, no. You can construct falsifiable hypotheses to explain things just fine without even your definition of objectivity. If you do that however, you cannot get any objective knowledge which is what you are whining about.



I expect to be able to construct logical, falsifiable explanations for anything I observe. So far, this expectation has been met. There is no known observable phenomenon for which we can claim that no scientific explanation is possible.

Qualia are one. The reason being is that they are not amenable to relational definitions, only ostensive ones. Of course, I can predict that you will now say they actually don't exist thus explaining them out of the debate. But that would be highly irrational and a case of selecting your observations.

Also, contructing logical explanations for observations does not mean that they denote the reality of something outside of your own experience of them.


Hallucinations have a scientific explanation. Without the assumption of objectivity they could not, and science would be falsified.

Firstly, the observations that constitute the objective reality of hallucinations are not the experiences that are the hallucination itself. This is in stark contrast to observations such as the behaviour of an electron in which the observations that constitute the objective reality are those of the electron itself.

Again, this is a case of selective observation, albeit a cunningly disguised form.

To expand, the explanation that denotes the objective reality of hallucinations is applicable to all our experiences. Specifically, our brain constructs our conscious representations of reality. So the question now shifts: which representations are the "real" ones ?

For example, my experience of the behaviour of an electron is a subjective contruction of the brain.

But for some reason this contruction is said to relate to an objective reality which is more than our experience of the electron and is logical and consistent.

Another example, my experience of the behaviour of a tennis ball turning itself inside out without breaking is a subjective construction of the brain.

But for some reason this construction is said not to relate to an objective reality which is more than our experience of the inside-out tennis ball and is logical and consistent.

You see, your framework has to rely on our observations. The only observations you will allow to be applicable are those that are logical and consistent and therefore pass the criteria of being objective.




Without the axiom of objectivity, the scientific method would be invalid.

No, I proved to you that the scientific method does not work when trying to validify its own framework of reality. That doesn't mean that science is meaningless. You just have to change the meaning of what knowledge it gives us.


Therefore the assumption of objectivity is a necessary assumption for the validity of science.

As a method for obtaining objective knowledge


That means that the fact that the scientific method has, in spite of very extensive testing, never been shown to be invalid, constitutes supporting evidence for the hypothesis that the axioms of science, including the axiom of objectivity, are valid.



Qualia prove that to be false.

[Oso]

Originally posted by davidsmith73
Qualia are one. The reason being is that they are not amenable to relational definitions, only ostensive ones. Of course, I can predict that you will now say they actually don't exist thus explaining them out of the debate. But that would be highly irrational and a case of selecting your observations.

Also, contructing logical explanations for observations does not mean that they denote the reality of something outside of your own experience of them.You have absolutely no idea what Stimpy is saying do you?
Simply stunning. Are you and Ian related?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Oso
Qualia are one. The reason being is that they are not amenable to relational definitions, only ostensive ones. Of course, I can predict that you will now say they actually don't exist thus explaining them out of the debate. But that would be highly irrational and a case of selecting your observations.

Also, contructing logical explanations for observations does not mean that they denote the reality of something outside of your own experience of them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You have absolutely no idea what Stimpy is saying do you?
Simply stunning. Are you and Ian related?

As he persistently contradicts himself all the time I am highly sceptical that Stimp himself knows what he is talking about a lot of the time. He doesn't seem to have worked out a consistent position to stick to. Moreover, my opinion appears to be shared by everyone who engages Stimp in long debates. But of course you maintain Stimp is right, and all the people who argue against him are wrong. Wouldn't care to explain why would you? :rolleyes:

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


As he persistently contradicts himself all the time I am highly sceptical that Stimp himself knows what he is talking about a lot of the time. He doesn't seem to have worked out a consistent position to stick to. Moreover, my opinion appears to be shared by everyone who engages Stimp in long debates. But of course you maintain Stimp is right, and all the people who argue against him are wrong. Wouldn't care to explain why would you? :rolleyes:
Ian...I think that I understand your position, and it does surprise me that you do not seem to be understood by more people here. I also do understand (and agree with) Stimpy's position in this thread, and it absolutely boggles my mind (metaphorically speaking, of course) that you and davidsmith consistently fail to grasp it. I would not expect you to agree with it--but for someone of your intelligence to continue to fail to understand such an incredibly well presented Stimpy-world-view smacks of willful ignorance. Perhaps you do understand, and carry on this way for rhetorical reasons--if so, quit it!

[Oso]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
As he persistently contradicts himself all the time I am highly sceptical that Stimp himself knows what he is talking about a lot of the time. He doesn't seem to have worked out a consistent position to stick to. Moreover, my opinion appears to be shared by everyone who engages Stimp in long debates. But of course you maintain Stimp is right, and all the people who argue against him are wrong. Wouldn't care to explain why would you? :rolleyes: Actually it's pretty simple, I can generally understand what Stimpy is saying, whereas I can rarely understand the replys. Perhaps it's because my background is in math and the "hard" sciences, not philosophy and obfuscation, and I don't intend the word obfuscation to be pejorative, I'm accepting it as a legitimate debating technique.

Specifically the "long debates" seem to always be characterized by clear straightforward explanations/rebuttals by Stimpy and convoluted obtuse replys by you et al, of which I never see the value, assuming value is defined as reaching a clearer understanding of the natural world. I don't totally disregard the potential value of your responses, after all Stimpy keeps replying as if it may accomplish something.

I probably won't reply to any queries anytime soon, the poker game is starting and "baby needs a new pair of shoes".

...
Cousins? Yall are at least blood kin right?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Mercutio
I also do understand (and agree with) Stimpy's position in this thread, and it absolutely boggles my mind (metaphorically speaking, of course) that you and davidsmith consistently fail to grasp it. I would not expect you to agree with it--but for someone of your intelligence to continue to fail to understand such an incredibly well presented Stimpy-world-view smacks of willful ignorance.

Hmmmmm you are taking the p*ss aren't you?? I understand what he's saying and I also understand that he uses many words in a completely differing sense to what they actually mean. I also understand that he is inconsistent from post to post, and in as much as any sense can be discerned in his ramblings it is one of complete stupidity.

I mean just consider what he asserts! The subjective doesn't exist. Either qualia is objective or simply doesn't exist (and I don't know which one because he keeps saying contradictory things on this issue). Indeed he thinks that mental events are synonymous (not identical!) to brain events (something self-evidently false). He seems to think that the progress of science requires metaphysical assumptions in that reality needs to be "objective". However he uses a difering definition of objective to the rest of the planet and is apparently quite unable to understand that his position is introducing metaphysical elements.

So tell me what I'm not understanding about his position??

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Oso
Actually it's pretty simple, I can generally understand what Stimpy is saying, whereas I can rarely understand the replys. Perhaps it's because my background is in math and the "hard" sciences, not philosophy and obfuscation, and I don't intend the word obfuscation to be pejorative, I'm accepting it as a legitimate debating technique.

Specifically the "long debates" seem to always be characterized by clear straightforward explanations/rebuttals by Stimpy and convoluted obtuse replys by you et al, of which I never see the value, assuming value is defined as reaching a clearer understanding of the natural world. I don't totally disregard the potential value of your responses, after all Stimpy keeps replying as if it may accomplish something.

I probably won't reply to any queries anytime soon, the poker game is starting and "baby needs a new pair of shoes".

...
Cousins? Yall are at least blood kin right?


What??? Do you also understand his statements such as the smell of farts do not exist and the subjective is really "objective"??? :eek:

[Interesting Ian]

Tell you what. Let's talk his "position" through step by step. Let's start with his crazy assertion that his materialism doesn't involve ontological or metaphysical presuppositions. I have already conclusively demonstrated that this simply cannot be maintained over on R&P. Osso and Mercutio, do you both at least concede that Stimpy is talking nonsense here??

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by Mercutio

Ian...I think that I understand your position, and it does surprise me that you do not seem to be understood by more people here. I also do understand (and agree with) Stimpy's position in this thread, and it absolutely boggles my mind (metaphorically speaking, of course) that you and davidsmith consistently fail to grasp it. I would not expect you to agree with it--but for someone of your intelligence to continue to fail to understand such an incredibly well presented Stimpy-world-view smacks of willful ignorance. Perhaps you do understand, and carry on this way for rhetorical reasons--if so, quit it!

Mercutio,

I grasp Stimpy's position just fine. In fact I used to have the same views. However, it has some serious flaws and logical shortcomings. I am just trying to point them out and discuss them. What is wrong with that ?

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by Oso
Actually it's pretty simple, I can generally understand what Stimpy is saying, whereas I can rarely understand the replys. Perhaps it's because my background is in math and the "hard" sciences, not philosophy and obfuscation, and I don't intend the word obfuscation to be pejorative, I'm accepting it as a legitimate debating technique.

Specifically the "long debates" seem to always be characterized by clear straightforward explanations/rebuttals by Stimpy and convoluted obtuse replys by you et al, of which I never see the value, assuming value is defined as reaching a clearer understanding of the natural world. I don't totally disregard the potential value of your responses, after all Stimpy keeps replying as if it may accomplish something.

I probably won't reply to any queries anytime soon, the poker game is starting and "baby needs a new pair of shoes".

...
Cousins? Yall are at least blood kin right?

So in other words, you don't understand Ian's or my position or our objections to the other side of the debate. I recommend that you go away and think about the questions that we raise a little more and come back when you have some input to the debate.

[Oso]

Originally posted by davidsmith73
...
come back when you have some input to the debate. OK
Microwave Oven.
Your turn.