John,
What do you mean by "there is no ideally correct case"?
I can understand if you sincerely doubt about elementary arithmetic,
though. In that case the term research lost his meaning, and we get a
completely instrumentalist conception of science. We get the type of
relativism used by my opponents i Brussels and Paris, that is
philosophers who asserted that truth = power, and who illustrated it
by rejecting my thesis while admitting not having seen any flaws. One
said to me simply: "we have the money". Those are cynical people who
vindicate corruption, simply.
We don't know the truth, but to make sense of research we need some
faith in it.
Bruno
On 21 Feb 2013, at 22:00, John Mikes wrote:
(I THINK: Brent):
But then, according to you, if they happen to be true they are
knowledge.
(I THINK: Bruno):
Yes, but "we" can't know that.
(again I THINK Brent:)
I'd say it's the other way around, scientists have no beliefs, only
hypotheses.
(again I THINK Bruno:) I define "belief" by "hypothesis" or
"derived from hypotheses". That's why in the ideally correct case,
belief = provable. This works because provable does not entail truth.
JM: There is NO ideally correct case. I define 'belief' as being
possibly based on hearsay as well (religious etc.)
(May I refer to my 2000 essay: Science - Religion, several times
quoted on these pages).
JM
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 5:58 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>
wrote:
On 20 Feb 2013, at 21:15, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/20/2013 8:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hi John,
On 19 Feb 2013, at 23:28, John Mikes wrote:
Craig, it seems we engaged in a fruitful discussion- thank you.
I want to reflect to a few concepts only from it to clarify MY
stance.
First my use of a 'model'. There are different models, from the
sexy young females over the math-etc. descriptions of theoretical
concepts (some not so sexy). - What I (after Robert Rosen?) use
by this word is an extract of something, we may not know in toto.
Close to an 'Occamized' version, but "cut" mostly by ignorance of
the 'rest of it', not for added clarity. Applied to whatever we
know TODAY about the world. Or: we THINK WE KNOW.
A scientist know nothing. Just nothing, not even his own
consciousness.
In science we have only beliefs,
But then, according to you, if they happen to be true they are
knowledge.
Yes, but "we" can't know that.
I'd say it's the other way around, scientists have no beliefs, only
hypotheses.
I define "belief" by "hypothesis" or "derived from hypotheses".
That's why in the ideally correct case, belief = provable. This
works because provable does not entail truth.
If you ask a physicist, for example, if he believes GR he will
probably give a complicated answer about how it is our best theory
of macroscopic gravitation and it has proven correct in many
experiments and it is our best model - BUT it is almost certainly
not right because its inconsistent with QM.
OK. (assuming QM is correct, of course).
and the best we can hope, is to refute them, by making them clear
enough.
I insist on this because there is a widespread misconsception in
popular science, but also among many materialist scientists (=
many scientists), that we can know something "scientifically", but
that is provably wrong with comp, and plausiibly wrong with common
sense.
A scientist who make public his knowledge is a pseudo-scientist,
or a pseudo-religious person, or is simply mad.
Is that true of logicians too. :-)
Yes. Actually logicians made this explicit, where most scientists
are unaware that their "scientific beliefs" are hypotheses. Many
believe that they are just "truth". Well, not all, of course. Some
scientists have still a scientific view, thanks God!
:)
Bruno
Brent
There is always an interrogation mark after any theory. Theories
are beliefs, never public knowledge. Even 1+1=2.
But we can (temporally) agree on some theories. We have to do that
to refute them, and learn.
Bruno
*
You mention 'statistical' in connection with adaptation. I deny
the validity of statistics (and so: of probability) because it
depends on the borderlines to observe in "counting" the items.
1000 years ago (or maybe yesterday) such boderlines were
different, consequently different statistics came up with
different chances of occurrence in them (not even mentioning the
indifference of WHEN all those chances may materialize).
*
"...within a looped continuum of perceived causality..."
Perceived causality is restricted to the 'model' content, while
it may be open to be entailed by instigators beyond our present
knowledge.
Furthermore (in the flimsy concept we have about 'time' I cannot
see a 'loop' - only a propagating curve as everything changes by
the time we think to 'close' the loop (like the path of a planet
as the Sun moves).
*
"...I couldn't agree with you more. That's a big part of what my
TOE is all about http://multisenserealism.com/8-matter-energy/..."
Your TOE? - MY FOOT. - Agnostically we are so far from even
speaking about 'everything' that the consecutively observable
levels of gathering some knowledge (adjusted to our ever evolving
mental capabilities into some personal 'mini-solipsism' -
different always for everyone) is a great pretension of the human
conventional sciences.
(Don't take it personally, please). We LIVE and THINK within (my)
model. Whatever is beyond is unknowable. But it affects the model
content.
The URL was an enjoyable reading - with Stephen's addition to it.
Best regards
John Mikes
On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 9:47 PM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com
> wrote:
I was so impressed with this page
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php#a1
that I thought it was worth listing a few here:
MISCONCEPTION: Natural selection involves organisms trying to
adapt.
MISCONCEPTION: Natural selection acts for the good of the species.
MISCONCEPTION: The fittest organisms in a population are those
that are strongest, healthiest, fastest, and/or largest.
MISCONCEPTION: Natural selection is about survival of the very
fittest individuals in a population.
MISCONCEPTION: All traits of organisms are adaptations.
MISCONCEPTION: Evolutionary theory implies that life evolved (and
continues to evolve) randomly, or by chance.
MISCONCEPTION: Evolution results in progress; organisms are
always getting better through evolution.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.2899 / Virus Database: 2639/6114 - Release Date:
02/18/13
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-
l...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.