If Not Science...

[Augustus]

Yeah, I think that is accepting what other people tell you on faith.

I've been one of those people who others accepted answers from on faith. Not the smartest way to go about it imo, but I understand the convenience of it.

Why would it be accepting anything on faith? Nothing I said has anything to do with that.

 

[Nakosis]

Why would it be accepting anything on faith? Nothing I said has anything to do with that.

If you don't test and verify what is instructed to you by others, what else would you call it?

 

[Augustus]

If you don't test and verify what is instructed to you by others, what else would you call it?

You really don't think there is ground between "testing your beliefs/truths by every means you can conceive of until you've exhausted your creative process" and "taking it on faith"?

Let's say I'm a young financial trader starting out. Someone I respect with 40 years of success gives me advice about long term success that I can see matches how he acts (so isn't empty talk).

I ask why this is successful and he says "no idea, but i know it works".

How would I test this "scientifically" in the short term?

If his advice was bad, it is unlikely he would have survived 40 years in the business to pass it on to me so why is this "taking it on faith?"

This is heuristic knowledge, and such knowledge has served people well in all kinds of industries since time immemorial (particularly pre-modern artisanal guilds).

 

[Wildswanderer]

Logic without science has no guaranteed grounding in reality. Faith, I'm not a big fan of.

Science isn't always right, you know.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Can they? Which ones?
I'm hoping you're not thinking of the polygraph? Widely used in the US, considered unreliable in Europe.

- Polygraph - Wikipedia

I was actually thinking more about brain scans and stuff like body language etc.

I read an article some time ago about brand fanboys. The case study was apple fanboys. They hooked them up the a bunch of brain scanning equipment and then showed them a bunch of random brand logo's, mixed in with apple product logo's.

When they saw the apple logo's, their brains responded in the same manner that devout catholics' brains responded when shown christian symbolism.

Then there's also the "happy hormones" etc.

When you get stimulated by things you love / like, this triggers physical responses. Responses that can be detected, assessed, measured.

All that put together makes it clear to me that we can find out such things through scientific means without the subject telling us.

The primitive / simplistic version of such would be...

This kid doesn't like this:

This kid does like it:

 

[Nakosis]

You really don't think there is ground between "testing your beliefs/truths by every means you can conceive of until you've exhausted your creative process" and "taking it on faith"?

No

Let's say I'm a young financial trader starting out. Someone I respect with 40 years of success gives me advice about long term success that I can see matches how he acts (so isn't empty talk).

I ask why this is successful and he says "no idea, but i know it works".

How would I test this "scientifically" in the short term?

If his advice was bad, it is unlikely he would have survived 40 years in the business to pass it on to me so why is this "taking it on faith?"

This is heuristic knowledge, and such knowledge has served people well in all kinds of industries since time immemorial (particularly pre-modern artisanal guilds).

Yes, actually there are groups who have tested several of the commonly used stock market indicators. So you don't have to take it on faith which ones actually work. Not to mention several companies now exist with have developed AI software which can provide better than average returns.

 

[Ella S.]

Sure, science is not perfect. However with our limited knowledge/understanding, it is imo the best way to keep the error count down.

As far as empirical truth goes, I agree. However, what if there is no objective reality? What if the core tenets of empiricism demonstrate themselves to be false?

Moreover, how is it that we arrive at empiricism to begin with? We arrive at it through the logical analysis of our experiences. We come to inductively conclude that there is a coherent, external reality independent from our own existence. That is a perfectly logical conclusion, but it is a conclusion of logic, not empiricism. It is the start for empiricism.

And what about when empiricism conflicts with opposite models, such as solipsism, idealism, or dualism? How can one compare them? It's logic that tells us to favor the empirical approach.

What about when certain empirical findings are illusions, confabulations, or hallucinations? What corrects for these errors? Not empiricism itself, but the logical analysis of empirical evidence.

This is why I think logic is the superior method. It could one day be essential in improving upon empiricism to turn it into something more accurate. Plus, as mentioned before, it doesn't dismiss other fields that science relies on, such as mathematics.

Empiricism carries with it implicit assumptions, whereas logic is a pure methodology.

 

[Nakosis]

As far as empirical truth goes, I agree. However, what if there is no objective reality? What if the core tenets of empiricism demonstrate themselves to be false?

Moreover, how is it that we arrive at empiricism to begin with? We arrive at it through the logical analysis of our experiences. We come to inductively conclude that there is a coherent, external reality independent from our own existence. That is a perfectly logical conclusion, but it is a conclusion of logic, not empiricism. It is the start for empiricism.

And what about when empiricism conflicts with opposite models, such as solipsism, idealism, or dualism? How can one compare them? It's logic that tells us to favor the empirical approach.

What about when certain empirical findings are illusions, confabulations, or hallucinations? What corrects for these errors? Not empiricism itself, but the logical analysis of empirical evidence.

This is why I think logic is the superior method. It could one day be essential in improving upon empiricism to turn it into something more accurate. Plus, as mentioned before, it doesn't dismiss other fields that science relies on, such as mathematics.

Empiricism carries with it implicit assumptions, whereas logic is a pure methodology.

Logic can lead to paradoxes. Like the raven paradox. I don't see paradoxes as particularly useful. However some people really love the fact that they can throw paradoxes into our assumptions about reality.

IMO, an imperfect answer is better than an unresolvable paradox.

 

[Ella S.]

Logic can lead to paradoxes. Like the raven paradox. I don't see paradoxes as particularly useful. However some people really love the fact that they can throw paradoxes into our assumptions about reality.

IMO, an imperfect answer is better than an unresolvable paradox.

The Raven Paradox isn't unsolvable. It actually makes complete sense.

Let's say you had a finite number of objects in a room and you sorted them by color. Let's also say you know there is at least one black raven in the room. What if you don't see any ravens among any of the non-black colors?

Then you know that all of the ravens in the room are black. That's all the Raven "Paradox" points out. Is that really so unreasonable?

 

[Nakosis]

The Raven Paradox isn't unsolvable. It actually makes complete sense.

Let's say you had a finite number of objects in a room and you sorted them by color. Let's also say you know there is at least one black raven in the room. What if you don't see any ravens among any of the non-black colors?

Then you know that all of the ravens in the room are black. That's all the Raven "Paradox" points out. Is that really so unreasonable?

Well I didn't start off with the intent to argue against logic. However IMO, logic comes with its own set of flaws.

My preference is science if only because to me it seems more practical.

 

[Ella S.]

Well I didn't start off with the intent to argue against logic. However IMO, logic comes with its own set of flaws.

My preference is science if only because to me it seems more practical.

The philosophy of science is derived from logic, making the scientific method a subset of applied logic. Any flaws you find with logic are going to, by proxy, apply to science, too. It's inescapable.

My point is that "truth" doesn't just refer to the natural sciences, and that without a broader understanding of truth we could never really justify the claims of the natural sciences, either. By tossing out logic, you end up destroying not only the foundations of science but also the foundations of history, mathematics, computer science, and analytical philosophy.

The scientific method is a useful tool of applied logic, but it's only one tool, its use is limited, and its usefulness is directly derived from the usefulness of logic as a whole.

There's not an "either science or logic." There's really just "either logic or irrationality," in my opinion.

 

[Nakosis]

The philosophy of science is derived from logic, making the scientific method a subset of applied logic. Any flaws you find with logic are going to, by proxy, apply to science, too. It's inescapable.

My point is that "truth" doesn't just refer to the natural sciences, and that without a broader understanding of truth we could never really justify the claims of the natural sciences, either. By tossing out logic, you end up destroying not only the foundations of science but also the foundations of history, mathematics, computer science, and analytical philosophy.

The scientific method is a useful tool of applied logic, but it's only one tool, its use is limited, and its usefulness is directly derived from the usefulness of logic as a whole.

There's not an "either science or logic." There's really just "either logic or irrationality," in my opinion.

Ok, next time the question will be "If Not Science or Logic, then What"

 

[Ella S.]

You really don't think there is ground between "testing your beliefs/truths by every means you can conceive of until you've exhausted your creative process" and "taking it on faith"?

Let's say I'm a young financial trader starting out. Someone I respect with 40 years of success gives me advice about long term success that I can see matches how he acts (so isn't empty talk).

I ask why this is successful and he says "no idea, but i know it works".

How would I test this "scientifically" in the short term?

If his advice was bad, it is unlikely he would have survived 40 years in the business to pass it on to me so why is this "taking it on faith?"

This is heuristic knowledge, and such knowledge has served people well in all kinds of industries since time immemorial (particularly pre-modern artisanal guilds).

This is a self-refuting argument.

Success is primarily determined by luck. It's luck that gives the opportunity for success, privilege that gives one the ability to capitalize on those opportunities, and fortune that has them turn out in a desirable way rather than horribly failing due to some force outside of your control (or privilege to have the safety net to recover if it does crash and burn.)

Successful people give a variety of superstitious "advice" like pulling yourself up by your bootstraps, but it's all nonsense. If you want to be successful, then your best bet is to be born a white male in a first world country to wealthy parents. Your actual skills and hard work matter practically not at all.

Probably the worst source of these myths come from the anecdotes and urban legends of economists, the same kind of people who will praise Steve Jobs for starting Apple "from just his garage" or how Sam Walton founded Wal-Mart from "humble beginnings." That's just not how the real world works.

Ironically, taking this sort of "heuristic" (aka "biased") reasoning into account is precisely why you're completely wrong on this topic.

 

[Augustus]

This is a self-refuting argument.

Success is primarily determined by luck. It's luck that gives the opportunity for success, privilege that gives one the ability to capitalize on those opportunities, and fortune that has them turn out in a desirable way rather than horribly failing due to some force outside of your control (or privilege to have the safety net to recover if it does crash and burn.)

Successful people give a variety of superstitious "advice" like pulling yourself up by your bootstraps, but it's all nonsense. If you want to be successful, then your best bet is to be born a white male in a first world country to wealthy parents. Your actual skills and hard work matter practically not at all.

Probably the worst source of these myths come from the anecdotes and urban legends of economists, the same kind of people who will praise Steve Jobs for starting Apple "from just his garage" or how Sam Walton founded Wal-Mart from "humble beginnings." That's just not how the real world works.

Ironically, taking this sort of "heuristic" (aka "biased") reasoning into account is precisely why you're completely wrong on this topic.

I think you have misunderstood what I meant.

I wasn't talking about advice like "get up early and work hard" but technical skills relating to specific jobs.

I agree generic advice that works for one person may be bad on average, but long term track record relating to domain specific skills is highly likely to be useful.

A different example: stonemasons building medieval cathedrals didn't really understand the physics behind construction and they weren't all reinventing the wheel by trial and error.

Most were just doing what their master had told them works.

They weren't "taking it on faith" though, the fact someone had become a master stonemason is good evidence they know what they are talking about.

 

[Ponder This]

Then what is the better method to use to find the answer to a question?

Seeing as you have asked a question for which "science" is ill-suited, I introduce you to...
Philosophical methodology, a collection of better methods for answering your question.

 

[cladking]

Seeing as you have asked a question for which "science" is ill-suited, I introduce you to...
Philosophical methodology, a collection of better methods for answering your question.

To the holiest of thou everything is science.

 

[Audie]

Science isn't always right, you know.

Revelavtion of the century

 

[Nakosis]

Seeing as you have asked a question for which "science" is ill-suited, I introduce you to...
Philosophical methodology, a collection of better methods for answering your question.

Sure, it is a different method to answer question.
Does it provide a better answer though?
I think that is a matter of opinion.

IMO, it doesn't provide an answer, it provides a way of thinking about an answer.

Useful if you're looking to question the results of science but not as practical if you are actually looking to accomplish a physical task.

 

[Ponder This]

Sure, it is a different method to answer question.
Does it provide a better answer though?
I think that is a matter of opinion.

IMO, it doesn't provide an answer, it provides a way of thinking about an answer.

Useful if you're looking to question the results of science but not as practical if you are actually looking to accomplish a physical task.

The scientific method doesn't provide a means to answer your question at all, does it? How would you use science to answer your question?

 

[Nakosis]

The scientific method doesn't provide a means to answer your question at all, does it? How would you use science to answer your question?

I don't think philosophy does either, well I guess it really provides too many answers. None with any real certainty though.
IMO, you got to accept some questions you aren't going to get an answer for. I expect a lot of people hate that idea but it's reality.

I mean if you're not going to get a real answer anyway seems like a waste of time looking for one.
Of course I understand some folks got plenty of time to waste on it.
I suppose people prefer thinking they know something rather than accepting the reality of ignorance.

Again, not saying science will provide perfect answers, just slightly more practical ones.