Faith, Reason, and Self-evident truths

[Jester]

This is currently being discussed in the Holy Huddle room, but for those non-Christians who wish to participate, I'm adding the topic here.

Is there proof, reasonable evidence, some evidence, etc for the existence of reality?

Or:

Must we accept some things on a non-rational basis?

Or:

Do you have some response not mentioned above?

[Beto]

Well... not really. If my measurements do not give the result I expect, either my measurements are wrong or my expectations are wrong.
Stubborn as scientists are, they will initially doubt their measurements and repeat the experiment until they feel sure, with the emphasis on feel. If the result is sufficiently novel, they will try to publish it. If fellow scientists feel the same way, they get it published, else not. Publications give rise to new expectations. And the cycle repeats.

If you have an alternative to the peer-review system, I'd like to hear it.

And how do we know they are fundamental? According to string theory, bosons and fermions are indeed fundamental, but any experiment to test string theory requires more energy than we will ever be able to generate. So we seem to have hit a barrier, and we can't prove or disprove if these particles are fundamental or not.

You know string theory, but you say science "makes no claims about the fundamental nature or reality of anything"? What does the current inability to test something has to do with making theoretical claims? These claims have something objective supporting them, like mathematics.

[Sjoerd]

If you have an alternative to the peer-review system, I'd like to hear it.

Hehe... apart from banning old dinosauric professors from doing the review, I am afraid I wouldn't know...

You know string theory, but you say science "makes no claims about the fundamental nature or reality of anything"? What does the current inability to test something has to do with making theoretical claims? These claims have something objective supporting them, like mathematics.

Well... according to many scientists, string theory isn't science as long as it can't be tested. If string theory would ever become testable, perhaps then science could make any claims of the fundamental structure of matter. As it is now, there are alternative theories (though not very popular) that state that quarks are not fundamental, and the issue cannot be settled.

[Goat]

You mean that applying metaphysics to a metaphysical question is useless? I am not criticising you, I just have no clue of what you mean.

I am saying that often the metaphysical question is useless to begin with, and has no function or meaning.

[Thought Criminal]

I vehemently deny that science is based on any pursuit of absolute knowledge whatsoever. Any facts and theories provided by science are provisional, and should hence be named "belief" rather than "knowledge". Justified belief, but but belief nevertheless. Science gives us the power to predict and manipulate our surroundings, and it is the most powerful method to do so. It makes no claims about the fundamental nature or reality of anything. If you want to apply scientific techniques such as parsimony to metaphysics, do as you will, but do not claim that metaphysics falls within the realm of science.

Your denial, alongside your inability to address my arguments, is duly noted and dismissed. It is rooted in the notion that knowledge entails infallibility, which is an error I've correct enough times that you have no excuse to repeat it. Speaking of repeating, you seem unable to accurately repeat my arguments. For example, I didn't say metaphysics was within the domain of science, I said that parsimony is in the domain of epistemology, which tells us about ontology.

In summary, you do display a comprehension of your opponent's arguments nor do you offer counterarguments. You are failing to debate, losing by default.

TC

[Jester]

I’m going to trim again. Let me know if I cut something important.

[Prediction is] the requirement of epistemology, which underlies scientific theory, among other things. In general, the goal of epistemology is to create a system of beliefs that matches reality, a model of the universe that we can use to determine why things happened and what would happen if we made certain choices. We seek truth, but with an emphasis on relevant facts.

I agree. However, observations regarding the physical universe are not relevant to this discussion. The only relevance they have is in the possibility that they provide evidence for their own validity; making predictions about their patterns is another subject entirely.

The problem with making all of these ad hoc abstract models to solve specific problems is that you have to keep track of them all. Each is only good for a limited domain, not only leaving gaps where no models reach but also conflicts where domains overlap and models contradict.

I fail to see how they are ad hoc myself, but agree that we should keep track of them all.
My main response, however, is that we are seeking evidence of the physical universe. Pointing out holes in other theories does not actually provide that evidence or tell us anything of the probability that the physical universe is real.
The methods of simplification and prediction are incredibly practical ideas if we first accept a few basic premises. Otherwise, they are not valid logical principals.

Parsimony tells us which model to choose from, given a set that accounts equally well for the data. When a model is less powerful, though, simplicity will not save it. Admittedly, the stuff-falls-down theory of gravity is simpler than Newton's, but it explains less.

My issue with this is that the claim that physical reality exists actually explains nothing. All the claims of science regard the patterns of what we perceive. Choosing to refer to such patterns as real, or as illusory, does nothing to effect the predictive power of our observations.

This would only be the case if I were asserting that physical reality is an illusion. As I have only asserted that physical reality is not evidenced, I need only point out that this is a possibility, as well as our lack of means to ascertain the likelihood of this case to support my point.

This is weaseling, not a legitimate argument. It ignores the evidence of our senses as evidence of what our senses tell us, and it pretends to argue for a possibility when it's actually claiming that it's a possibility we need to consider. If you think about how low a bar mere possibility is, you'll see that such an argument would be worthless even if it were sound.

I don’t feel that this is weaseling in the slightest myself. It is exactly the validity of our senses that I am questioning. Therefore, referring to sensory input as evidence becomes a circular argument. I would agree that I’m arguing that we consider a possibility, and that it is very easy for something to be possible. Probably, anything is possible, which is exactly my point: anything being possible would mean that nothing is certain.

Formal logic is a tool used by epistemology, not a replacement for epistemology. Your entire argument is based on the idea that formal logic can't tell us what's real. This is as true as it is uninteresting, because we're talking about knowledge here, which means we're within the field of epistemology.

I agree. I merely wanted to point out that epistemology and the scientific method are not synonymous.

It is an assertion that has been repeatedly demonstrated to be false, as recently as in this message and as far back as the first one on this topic. Your inability to understand or refusal to accept does not constitute a counterargument. I will not repeat myself again on this matter, so this is your last chance to get it.

Many things have been discussed, but what we still lack is evidence relevant to the point. I would suggest that a demonstration of falsehood is a great deal more complex than anything that can be done in a simple post, particularly for such a massive topic. As such, I would encourage both you and myself to have patience when discussing the issue.

I’m not sure where I have done this, actually. I do not believe that I’ve claimed that an error theory is evidenced. Certainly, that was not my intent if I did. As to the idea that such a theory could explain events, this is true. This is the case, and is the case in my example. The insane man’s theory explains the data and gives him predictive power. It is also false. This was presented to support my statement that the scientific ability to make predictions and explain events does not evidence the validity of physical reality. Never did I intend to say that such a theory has been shown as correct. Apologies if it sounded that way.

An insane man is not rational, so there's little point discussing why they cling to a demonstrably false belief. The delusion that he is Napoleon fails to explain the discrepancies between that idea and all the evidence. It predicts less, and less accurately, than the error hypothesis.

This is true, but does not address the point. Predictive power about patterns does not demonstrate the ultimate nature of those patterns, as evidenced by the example.

It is a discussion of the scientific method, which is a formalization of epistemology. Youre splitting hairs here to no end. And, as I've explained, you are simply mistaken about what the scientific method presumes.

The scientific method depends on epistemology. It also, however, depends on other assumptions that lie outside of epistemological principals. It is these assumptions which we are discussing.

If I try to justify “fake certainty� through these doubts at a later date, feel free to call me on the fallacy. In the mean time, what I claimed was true. Science, while it has done far more than any other method to chart the connection between the brain and the mind, has not established whether or not one is the product of the other. Nor has it attempted to do so; that is not its job. Personally, I marvel at science’s ability to do its job, but feel that it would be contrary to the spirit of science to draw hazy lines about what its job is.

You already have; you've said that your epistemological confusion, as exemplified here, is what justifies your fake certainty -- you call it "faith" -- in religious dogmas.

I feel that I clarified above, but will point out directly that I am not arguing against the epistemological aspects of the scientific method. I am arguing against the idea that the non-epistomological assumptions regarding the nature of the physical world within such a method are not evidenced.
And, with regard to what I consider to be faith, or religious dogma for that matter, I don’t believe that I’ve told you enough for you to know what I “justify� or how I do it. My choice of beliefs, let alone my intellectual reasons for those beliefs, have not been discussed.

[Thought Criminal]

Jester, you're shredding my message and replying point by point without bothering to recognize that all of these sentences are formed into paragraphs which likewise work together to express an idea. As such, you have failed to understand anything I've said.

TC

[Jester]

Jester, you're shredding my message and replying point by point without bothering to recognize that all of these sentences are formed into paragraphs which likewise work together to express an idea. As such, you have failed to understand anything I've said.

TC

I personally believe that a point by point response is the best way to give specific and clear responses.
I did, however, read the post in its entirety, and did notice several general ideas which I felt you were attempting to communicate. I tried to touch on those issues in my responses as best as I was able. If you feel that I have missed your actual points, could you attempt to make them more clear? (Perhaps headings would be useful?)
It seems that something well-proved should be communicable, as clarity is a requirement for valid argument. Therefore, if we are talking at cross purposes, it is up to us to make our respective arguments more transparent.
On that note, let me know if there are any points in my argument that have not communicated the reasons for my position effectively.

[Thought Criminal]

Jester, you're shredding my message and replying point by point without bothering to recognize that all of these sentences are formed into paragraphs which likewise work together to express an idea. As such, you have failed to understand anything I've said.

TC

I personally believe that a point by point response is the best way to give specific and clear responses.
I did, however, read the post in its entirety, and did notice several general ideas which I felt you were attempting to communicate. I tried to touch on those issues in my responses as best as I was able. If you feel that I have missed your actual points, could you attempt to make them more clear? (Perhaps headings would be useful?)
It seems that something well-proved should be communicable, as clarity is a requirement for valid argument. Therefore, if we are talking at cross purposes, it is up to us to make our respective arguments more transparent.
On that note, let me know if there are any points in my argument that have not communicated the reasons for my position effectively.

No, at this point I'm out of patience with you, so I'm not even going to try.

TC

[Jester]

No, at this point I'm out of patience with you, so I'm not even going to try.

TC

Well, that is unfortunate. I do admit that my version of debating requires more patience than most. I do not regret this, of course; I feel that we generally tend to be too hasty in our conclusions.
Beyond that, I appreciate your thoughts. Best wishes to you until I run across you again.

[Nameless]

Commenting on the OP; perhaps 'proof' might be defined as a 'conclusion' that someone is willing to accept, especially as it conforms to their already held (concluded, identified with) opinions and beliefs?