World views, paradigms and cognitive stubbornness

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Originally Posted by Daylightstar

Which straw man do you believe I raised or which straw man do you believe I wanted to see or accuse you of indirectly?


So you see no problems with the acceptance of any current idea as a theoretical model. Cool.

I might be wrong, sorry if this is the case, but I felt you were trying to push me to state what I was going to "propose", which woo I was going to defend after the OP.

Your second sentence is tricky, lets take it slowly. Which current idea? We are talking about theoretical models that at least are self way coherent and attempt to describe the facts, right?

[Daylightstar]

Originally Posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen

I might be wrong, sorry if this is the case, but I felt you were trying to push me to state what I was going to "propose", which woo I was going to defend after the OP.
...

I asked you for two things:

1) Data (observation) with which your 'fact' can be verified, according to the definition of "fact" you appeared to accept.
2) A current example of any idea you feel should be included as a valid theoretical model as it is equal or as valid as any other idea.

None of which you have been able to provide.

Originally Posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen

... Which current idea? ...

This was my question to you.
But it appears that you do not have such an example, so your question would be moot.

As you can also not provide a current example of even 'a refusal to change' after the facts were established, why should anyone worry about it at all? Even in the future?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen

You want me to defend something I don't believe in? My stance is almost identical to Model Dependent Realism, far different from the Scientific Realism depicted in the Naive Realism article.

So you cited the naive realism link for no reason?

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Originally Posted by Daylightstar

I asked you for two things:

1) Data (observation) with which your 'fact' can be verified, according to the definition of "fact" you appeared to accept.
2) A current example of any idea you feel should be included as a valid theoretical model as it is equal or as valid as any other idea.

None of which you have been able to provide.

1) which is "my fact"?

2) This is your straw man, I have not reason to provide something I didn't offer. Did you read my post regarding this thread is about world views and how we relate to them? What matters is not that there are, or not, any current theoretical models competing with more established ones. Of course they exist! a physicist here, a biologist there, have been and will continue to propose revisions, to envision new ways to see at some particular collection of facts. I will not go dig some examples because, as I said, this is your straw man.

Originally Posted by Daylightstar

This was my question to you.
But it appears that you do not have such an example, so your question would be moot.

As you can also not provide a current example of even 'a refusal to change' after the facts were established, why should anyone worry about it at all? Even in the future?

The entire history of human knowledge is full of examples. I believe you should be aware of them, maybe this is the problem and you are not. I'm talking for instance about the Ptolemaic and Copernican theoretical models regarding the behavior of the known planets in relation to earth. When Copernican ideas came to light, the theory lacked any real punch to dethrone the Ptolemaic model, which was extremely useful for a thousand years. People were stubborn (not without reasons) until more facts were described in a better way by a revised Copernican model, developed by Galileo, Kepler and et al.

What I have been claiming (every time my works gives me some few spare minutes) is that this is because our models are not about a presupposed reality, but only about our relationship with facts.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

So you cited the naive realism link for no reason?

It is the opposite to Model Dependent Realism, and in many ways, comparable to what most naive realists consider woo.

[Daylightstar]

Originally Posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen

1) which is "my fact"?
...

Your 'fact' is:

Originally Posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen

...
Thing is, as I initially stated, every group will claim exactly the same (fact that I find rather interesting BTW)....

^{Hilite by Daylightstar}
as I already pointed out in post 2, post 14, post 46 and post 54.
From post 7 on the fourth of may onward, you are being evasive with respect to properly answering the question for data with which your purported 'fact' can be verified as per the definition you appeared to accept in post 1.

Originally Posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen

...

For the purpose of having a well-defined meaning for this key concept (fact), I would choose the best definition we currently have. Note: it comes from science (not philosophy):

"Fact is a verifiable observation."
...

^{Hilite by Daylightstar}

So, no straw man.

Is the moral of your Ptolemaic and Copernican (etc) examples, if your theory lacks punch, work harder at obtaining more and better data complemented with a better laying out of such? Is that it?
Not a bad idea.

Originally Posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen

...
What matters is not that there are, or not, any current theoretical models competing with more established ones. Of course they exist! a physicist here, a biologist there, have been and will continue to propose revisions, to envision new ways to see at some particular collection of facts. I will not go dig some examples because, as I said, this is your straw man. ...

^{Hilite by Daylightstar}

Since that straw man evidently does not exist, how about you work harder at providing facts, you know, verifiable observations of the physicist and biologist here and there who's ideas are violently opposed and experience people refusing to change, even if these people are presented with the facts (verifiable observations)?

Originally Posted by Daylightstar

Would you be so kind as to provide a current example if there is one, please?

Originally Posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen

... Of course they exist! ...

[Daylightstar]

Originally Posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen

... "my" fact? I don't own facts. ...

Originally Posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen

... "my fact"?....

Now, dizza bit of an obvious straw man. I have not claimed that you 'own' a fact.
Nor would such a claim make any sense at all. As I said, izza bit obvious.

[Merton]

Sounds like you're talking about meme propagation in a world where memes are rarely proven absolutely true. Instead, our beliefs (memes) are molded by our "brain state" (probably the wrong word, please forgive me), which is itself a collection of memes we've already come to accept. We begin as a kind of tabula rasa which quickly adopts the memes of its primary caretakers, most likely its parents. As new information enters, it is processed by this "brain state" and either adopted or rejected; it may even alter the "brain state" if contradictory information is discarded.

My view is that we have very little knowledge about the world, at least in an absolute sense. A priori facts only occur in Mathematics and basic Logic; everything else has a degree of veracity based upon our experience of it (a posteriori reasoning). In a very Popplerian sense, then, that which we consider factual is often merely unfalsified after a sufficient amount of data has been produced. We then build on top of these "facts" until we falsify something, at which point we have to question that entire branch of knowledge.

Are there axioms at the root of this tree of knowledge which we cannot eradicate? Or are there facts that still need an absolute proof? Absolutely. But we know from our a posteriori reasoning that the explanation with the fewest assumptions tends to be true, and we look for the explanation that is most useful and has the least amount of assumptions. To me, nothing beats rationalism. Rationalism (testing theory against observation) has proved its efficacy over other epistemological methods because it allows new ideas in, critically analyzes them, and rejects those that fail to pass muster. Knowing what we do about Epistemology and Psychology (how we know, what we can't know, how trustworthy human perception is, etc.), other methods (e.g. revelation) appear grossly inferior.

[CapelDodger]

Originally Posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen

Any idea is valid as long as it fits the facts and it is internally consistent (logically consistent), because their validity is measured against facts, not against a purposed territory.

I don't really keep up with philosophical terminology these days, but when did "purposed territory" become a meaningful phrase?

[AlBell]

I'm guessing 'proposed' was the word he wanted.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Indeed, sorry, English is not my first language, and most of the time I'm in a hurry when answering in the forum.