Evidence, science and religion and that evidence matters.

[Pogo]

Natural Sciences strictly have to adhere to Falsifiability and Scientific Method…Social Sciences don’t.

Disagree, they are just not as yet as good at it as the subjects are much harder to break down and we don't have hundreds of years developing reliable basics.
Even things as seemingly obvious as Dunning Kreuger have been questioned and modified over time.

 

[Magic Man]

How do you observe logic? And how do you decide a moral standpoint using logic and objective facts?

You observe logic by learning about it. Your second question is unclear. You can determine aspects of a moral standpoint using logic and objective facts. Deciding on your moral standpoint requires your opinion.

 

[Pogo]

To clarify, do you remember where you were taught this particular perspective?

I ask because as someone who pursued a post-grad degree in science and also added in the philosophy of science to my program of study, this is not the impression I have gotten.

Probably beyond all else, if I had to identify what the "point" of sciences are as a methodology and means of knowing the world around us, that point would be to describe the world around us rather than prescribe the world around us. That is, it is about repeated and statistically significant empirical observation of the world - often through standardized measuring instruments - without passing judgement on what these observations mean. The sciences do not make normative declarations of what ought to be or what should be, only what is (while acknowledging the limitations of the data and tools used). I suppose implicit in this is a reduction of bias, but that's not how it was framed to me in my own studies as elimination of bias is impossible. Instead, mindfulness of the limitations of one's methods and appropriate application of statistics to not overreach conclusions from the empirically observed data. And a lot of it is really about knowing how to ask good questions and construct a method to get an answer that actually addresses that question successfully. Also, knowing that scientific methodology is not always the appropriate tool to address all questions, or the only tool that could be used.

Are you really trying to disagree on the basis of the word determine vs describe and as much as possible vs total elimination is impossible?
I will then state that IMO this concept of mindfulness is so vague as to be useless and actually detrimental to rational thought.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You observe logic by learning about it. Your second question is unclear. You can determine aspects of a moral standpoint using logic and objective facts. Deciding on your moral standpoint requires your opinion.

You don't observe logic through your ability to see or other external sensory experince. You learn to understand logic in your thinking and that is a different defintion of observe:

Definition of OBSERVE

to conform one's action or practice to (something, such as a law, rite, or condition) : comply with; to inspect or take note of as an augury, omen, or presage; to celebrate or solemnize (something, such as a ceremony or festival) in a customary or accepted way… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

They are both there for observe, but they are different. Observe logic is not the same as observe in natural science.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Are you really trying to disagree on the basis of the word determine vs describe and as much as possible vs total elimination is impossible?
I will then state that IMO this concept of mindfulness is so vague as to be useless and actually detrimental to rational thought.

Yeah, that is your opinon. I accept that as long as you don't claim that it is objective or what not.

 

[Magic Man]

This is why the scientism cultists really need to pull their heads out of their phony scientific behinds and start thinking philosophically. Or even just LOGICALLY.

So, if we cannot eliminate our bias, how can we possibly know that our supposed attempt at eliminating it is not, itself, our bias? Or let's look at it another way. If we cannot know the WHOLE TRUTH, how can we possibly tell if the partial truth that we think we know is true or not? I mean, it's true of false compared to what? Compared to the other partial truths that that we think we know but can never be certain of?

OK, let's try this another way. What is the logical probability that the proposition X = X is true?

Bob says it's an absolute certainty that the equation is true because that is what the = symbol means, and says. Whatever "X" is, it has to be be equal to the other "X".

But Steve says that this is exactly why it is absolutely certain that the statement is false. Because there is no such comparable condition as absolute equality. Absolute equality can only occur within the SAME subject. "X" would have to be compared TO ITSELF to be deemed absolutely equal. And that would then completely negate the logic of the comparison. "X = X" is a logically incoherent proposition.

And so is the proposition that we can know the truth, or that we can eliminate our bias. And THIS is why the scientism cultists are fools, and why they are trying to blow smoke up everyone else's butts.

Truth is not subjective. It is an absolute ideal. The truth is WHAT IS; plain and simple and with no exceptions. The problem is that we humans cannot access the truth as a whole. And apart from the whole, there is no truth. There is only relative truthfulness. Which is always subject to bias, and error, and deception.

Facts ARE bias. This is what you're not understanding. It's a fact that Bob is correct, above. It's also a fact that Steve is correct, above. And yet they directy and totally contradict each other. How can this be? How can two completely opposed conclusions both be correct?

The answer is that the truth is bigger and more inclusive than either Bob or Steve can comprehend. So from Bob's limited perspective, his conclusion is correct. While from Steve's limited perspective, his conclusion is correct. While from our slightly less limited perspective, both of them are correct, and both of them are incorrect. Because the truth is still greater (more inclusive and transcendent) than that which any of our binary minds can cognate.

And science is NOT going to overcome this. Never has, and never will.

What you are calling a "conclusion" here is just the next hypothesis to be addressed. It's not a conclusion in any sense of it being truth, or proof, or whatever version of surety you want to label it.

There are no "scientism cultists". There are people who accept science. Science helps us determine objective facts about the universe. Through science we determined the speed of light, for instance. "Truth" is a subjective concept that means different things to different people.

A scientific conclusion is a conclusion. It's not a hypothesis, although it can lead to another hypothesis. It is not truth, but it is proof (in the informal sense).

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

Evidence A is likely to give an inaccurate answer.

In calculating your probabilities, you are assuming that my poll sample was random.

It was not.

I intentionally skewed the results of Evidence A by polling somebody who was born very close to the center of the world, the Axis Mundi, where heaven meets earth and hell.

In doing so, I messed up all of your calculations.

As a result, you are forced to rely on sciences like history, anthropology and plate tectonics, and who knows what else.

So far science has not contradicted my small sample, and in fact science has only expanded and elaborated on what my small sample told me more than a quarter century ago.

Have you considered turning to science to test your assumptions, instead of just guessing based on faulty assumptions of randomness?

 

[Magic Man]

You don't observe logic through your ability to see or other external sensory experince. You learn to understand logic in your thinking and that is a different defintion of observe:

Definition of OBSERVE

to conform one's action or practice to (something, such as a law, rite, or condition) : comply with; to inspect or take note of as an augury, omen, or presage; to celebrate or solemnize (something, such as a ceremony or festival) in a customary or accepted way… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

They are both there for observe, but they are different. Observe logic is not the same as observe in natural science.

And?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

There are no "scientism cultists". There are people who accept science. Science helps us determine objective facts about the universe. Through science we determined the speed of light, for instance. "Truth" is a subjective concept that means different things to different people.

A scientific conclusion is a conclusion. It's not a hypothesis, although it can lead to another hypothesis. It is not truth, but it is proof (in the informal sense).

'Well, what if I could find at least one scientist who claim science is about truth. Now if I could, what would be your answer?

 

[Magic Man]

In calculating your probabilities, you are assuming that my poll sample was random?

It was not.

I intentionally skewed the results by polling somebody who was born very close to the center of the world, the Axis Mundi, where heaven meets earth and hell.

In doing so, I messed up all of your calculations.

As a result, you are forced to rely on sciences like history, anthropology and plate tectonics, and who knows what else.

So far science has not contradicted my small sample, and in fact science has only expanded and elaborated on what my small sample told me more than a quarter century ago.

Have you considered turning to science, instead of just guessing based on faulty assumptions of randomness?

None of this makes sense. What I laid out was someone asking 2 people a question vs. someone doing a scientific poll of 1,500 random people.

 

[Magic Man]

No, but I still question whether you understand my position.

Maybe not. Your explanations are very convoluted and unclear.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

And?

You are conflating 2 different version of observe if you think objective logic and observe facts is the same.

 

[Magic Man]

'Well, what if I could find at least one scientist who claim science is about truth. Now if I could, what would be your answer?

My answer would be that they are either wrong or speaking informally.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

None of this makes sense. What I laid out was someone asking 2 people a question vs. someone doing a scientific poll of 1,500 random people.

What I laid out involved a poll with a sample size of one.

Reread the post you were replying to.

Again, I intentionally skewed the poll to invalidate your probability based argument.

 

[Magic Man]

You are conflating 2 different version of observe if you think objective logic and observe facts is the same.

I'm not sure what that has to do with anything here. I haven't mentioned anything about it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

My answer would be that they are either wrong or speaking informally.

Well, your observation with science should be that they have the observable property of being wrong.

 

[Magic Man]

What I laid out involved a poll with a sample size of one.

Reread the post you were replying to.

If you were trying to use it to make claims about a broad group of people or phenomenon, then it would be useless. If you were using it for something else, it would depend on what that was.

 

[Balthazzar]

Maybe not. Your explanations are very convoluted and unclear.

Convoluted?

To simplify I will suggest that the only thing that can truly be counted as "real" is "experience" and all experience is subjective, even our objective ones.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

If you were trying to use it to make claims about a broad group of people or phenomenon, then it would be useless. If you were using it for something else, it would depend on what that was.

I’m using it to encourage you to use science instead of random guessing.

Your unscientific methodology for verifying the results of my small sample didn’t work, did it?

You guessed wrong.

Had you instead turned to science, you would have been closer to the truth.

That’s what I did. First, you need to find out who the experts really are.

I can help you with that.

 

[Magic Man]

Convoluted?

Yes.

To simplify I will suggest that the only thing that can truly be counted as "real" is "experience" and all experience is subjective, even our objective ones.

That might be true in a philosophical sense. It's not helpful in a practical sense. We can verify facts about the universe through the scientific method and figure out what is real and what is not.