Re: I feel like college is changing my friend
I'm curious to know how many people have changed their minds based on what they read or heard in such discussions (I suspect it's a rare occurrence). It is still interesting to read because it gives me insight into other people's perspectives, but I doubt by the end of this discussion anyone will have significantly altered their opinions. But I'm going to participate regardless because arguing is fun even if it leads nowhere, lol.
1. Problem of induction:
I'm not too familiar with philosophy so correct me if I misunderstand the issue, but is the problem of induction not simply that we should not assume a principle based on limited observations? For example having only ever encountered land mammals and based on that experience assuming that all animals must give live birth, walk around on four legs, etc. I fail to understand how this is a significant problem for science. I can think of very few examples of claims to absolute scientific p
rinciples based on this (the only one that comes to mind at the moment is the universality and consistency of the laws of physics). But generally scientists will develop theories and models which makes certain predictions, which if found to be false would falsify the theory. For example, Einstein's general theory of relativity predicted the existence of gravitational waves a century before their discovery. In cases where a sample must be used because of the impossibility of examining every single data point, principles of statistics are used to increase the likelihood of obtaining an accurate result. For example, if you have a bag containing a thousand balls, and you draw 10 red balls, it would not be a sound basis for concluding that all the balls in the bag are red. If you draw a hundred however, and all the balls are still red, the probability that all the balls are red increases significantly. It also leaves the possibility that all the top balls are red though, But if you
draw 10 at a time and shuffle the bag before each sample was taken, and still all hundred balls are red, it further increases the probability that all the balls are red. The third important principle is repetition: other people will take the bag and perform the same procedure to see if they get the same results. If everyone else who tries it also get a hundred red balls, it again increases the probability. In these cases scientists wouldn't say that all the balls are definitely red though, but rather that it is a likely possibility. In statistics you never accept the null hypothesis (in this case that all balls are red), your conclusion is always to either reject or not to reject it.
It thus doesn't necessarily lead to the truth but it's the most effective way of trying to get to it where more accuracy is impossible.
2. Morality:
For people who think we should all be subject to their absolute morality, how do you propose we decide which among
all the various systems of absolute morality out there we should choose? Even among christians or muslims there are various different ideas about what is right and wrong, each group having it's own interpretation of their respective holy texts. I have encountered christians and muslims who see nothing wrong with or themselves partake in for example smoking cannabis, sex before marriage, homosexuality etc, where others see those things as evil and worthy of whatever model of divine punishment they subscribe to. Then there are all the other religions, such as the indian religions (buddhism, hinduism, etc) with different moral values. On which basis do you claim your specific ideas about morality to be that which everyone should preferably subscribe to, given that it is only one of a subset of ideas about morality within your religion, itself one of several religious traditions with their own sets of moral systems? If it is only based on personal experience, you cannot realistical
ly expect to convince others of it's validity if they do not share that experience. That is the equivalent of me telling you that cannabis is good because I like it and it has done (insert wonderful things here) for me and my uncle had cancer but then he smoked a joint and was miraculously healed etc. Those are personal experiences, but you might experience it much differently (becoming paranoid, developing an addiction, having your cancer spread regardless how much THC you put in your body, etc.). That is why I agree with daigonite on the need for an objective morality. My personal opinion is that everyone should be allowed to do whatever they want, as long as it does not negatively impact on anyone else. I personally think the golden rule has a few loopholes, and should be changed to treat others as they want to be treated. A sadist is basically a masochist following the golden rule, but I'm sure we can all agree that inflicting pain on others is not a good thing.
<
/p>
3. Miscellaneous (not relevant to discussion, feel free to skip):
3.1 Gravity:
Someone mentioned that gravity only effects us differently in as far as our weights differ. This is actually not the case. Your acceleration due to gravity is independent of mass, and in the absence of other constraining factors such as air friction, objects with different masses which experience the same gravitational force will fall at the same rate.
3.2 Socialism:
I feel like equating socialism with Stalin and the gulags is unfair. There are many variants of socialism, and most socialists regard the soviet system under Stalin as
_______________________________________________ Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
