Calibration and validation of an extant _device_, based on extant theory is very different from the "calibration" or validation of the theory upon which a device might be built. Russ' question was intended to assume the validation of the theory and go on from there.
On 12/20/2014 12:15 PM, Steve Smith wrote: > On 12/20/14 11:35 AM, glen wrote: >> On 12/20/2014 06:15 AM, Steve Smith wrote: >>> And how would this device be calibrated? It's measurements validated? >> I have in mind a device that comes with a decent body of mechanistic theory. >> If it didn't have such, and calibration and validation were mysterious... >> metaphysical... then it would not be solving any of the problems I have for >> it. So, the calibration of it would probably work much like that of an MRI >> or CT scanner. > > I guess my argument about validation is as simple as this: The only > validation I can imagine would be against self-reporting. One could find a > mechanistic brain-imaging (or measureable neurochemical) system which could > be *correlated* with self-reported (a)theist claims. But what of those who > remain? Those who *claim* to be theists whose brains light up much more like > a-theists and vice-versa? Would the machine's measurements take precedence > over the self-reported claim. > > This fits too well with the known-to-be-flawed "lie detectors" of forensic > science. If you were wired to a lie detector and asked if you "believed in > god" and it lit up (or not) when you said "yes" (or not), what would you > know? That lie detectors measure something besides truth/lie? That YOU > don't know your own mind? I suppose if you deliberately lied and the > machine lit up... then you might surmise that it "works", but if you > truthfully said "I do not believe in god" and it lit up, then would it mean > that you don't know your own mind on the subject? > > Maybe the Solstice tomorrow night will return me to the sanity of not getting > caught in such cogitations as this one.... p.s. I'm still not receiving any of Nick's messages, though they show up in the archive, e.g. http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/2014-December/045222.html And some of my messages don't seem to be getting through either. -- ⇒⇐ glen e. p. ropella It's long past due that we begin ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
