I keep having to remind myself that science is self-correcting …

_{Denyse O'Leary

May 20, 2009

Ethics}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

I have often been wearied by legends in their own lunchroom huffing that science differs from other endeavours because it is “self-correcting.”

To which I reply: Aw come off it, fellas. Any system that does not go extinct is self-correcting – after it collapses on its hind end. This is true of governments, businesses, churches, and not-for-profit organizations. I’ve seen enough of life to know.

Here’s a classic: At The Scientist’s NewsBlog, Bob Grant reveals (May 7, 2009) that

Scientific publishing giant Elsevier put out a total of six publications between 2000 and 2005 that were sponsored by unnamed pharmaceutical companies and looked like peer reviewed medical journals, but did not disclose sponsorship, the company has admitted.

Elsevier is conducting an “internal review” of its publishing practices after allegations came to light that the company produced a pharmaceutical company-funded publication in the early 2000s without disclosing that the “journal” was corporate sponsored

[ … ]

The allegations involve the Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine, a publication paid for by pharmaceutical company Merck that amounted to a compendium of reprinted scientific articles and one-source reviews, most of which presented data favorable to Merck’s products. The Scientist obtained two 2003 issues of the journal — which bore the imprint of Elsevier’s Excerpta Medica — neither of which carried a statement obviating Merck’s sponsorship of the publication.

The linked related stories and comments are most illuminating, and bear out my critique of “peer review” here. Let’s just say that peer review started out as a good idea, but …

(Note: There is no paywall, but you may need to register to view the story, .)

Also, today at Colliding Universes

Neutrinos: Sudbury Neutrino Observatory does the sun’s bookkeeping

Origin of life: The live cat vs. the dead cat

Cosmology: Wow. It takes guts to wage war with Stephen Hawking … he appeared in Star Trek

Universe: Arguments against flatness (plus exposing sloppy science writing)

Origin of life: Latest scenario gives RNA world a boost

Colliding Universes is my blog on competing theories about our universe.

Comments

Mr StephenB, How can the LNC be of any use to us if we can’t be sure when and where it applies? According to you, it does not apply at the subatomic level. How do you know that it even applies at the macroscopic level? Since the LNC cannot be proven, why accept it in any context? Why not just deny it outright and be done with it? Have no fear! We have determined experimentally that LNC does not work at the quantum level, but at the macroscopic level your parrot either is or is not dead. (Or pining for the fjords...)Nakashima_{May 31, 2009
May
05
May
31
31
2009
05:14 AM
5
05
14
AM
PDT}

PS: Diff, kindly reflect on the fire example -- which is not merely words about words. --> Can you have a fire with any one or more of [a] fuel, [b] oxisdiser, [c] heat, missing? --> thus, is it not more than merely tautological to say that these three are NECESSARY causal factors for a fire? --> Similarly, can you identify a case where a, b and c are present under appropriate conditions and we do not have a fire? [In an extreme case a hot enough metal body of appropriate composition will burn under water by dissociating the H2O molecules and using the O atoms to burn. I gather that is why on aircraft carriers burning alloy airplane wheels are tossed into the sea to burn in the sea until they self-consume . . . ]] --> So, is it not the case that these are sufficient causal factors such that on their joint presence we have a fire? --> Thus, it seems that cause-effect bonds, of both the sufficiency and the necessity type are a bit more than merely restating things in subject and predicate. --> And, given the observed reality of error and the undeniability of its existence, that error exists is not merely a tautology either. --> finally, given the utility of tautologies [statements of formal equivalence] in mathematics, such as the first postulates or laws of boolean algebra [used to develop and operate the PC you are using] even outright tautologies are not to be lightly dismissed. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{May 31, 2009
May
05
May
31
31
2009
05:10 AM
5
05
10
AM
PDT}

ok, i think i get the style of format we are supposed to be using now. muchos gracias.SaintMartinoftheFields_{May 31, 2009
May
05
May
31
31
2009
05:05 AM
5
05
05
AM
PDT}

I hold with the great thinker Protagoras that “there are two logoi, or accounts, to be given about everything” (trans. Kerferd). And yet accountants who keep two sets of books are accounted criminals! Perhaps this should be pursued on the "Two Sides To Every Story?" thread. ;)Nakashima_{May 31, 2009
May
05
May
31
31
2009
05:03 AM
5
05
03
AM
PDT}

Clive, "two" is one translation of a difficult fragment that is translated variously. Here are a few translations: "On every issue there are two arguments opposed to each other" (Michael J. O'Brien) "There are two sides to every question, opposed to each other" (R. D. Hicks) "On every question there are two speeches, which stand in opposition to one another" (Theodor Gomez) "Of every thing two contrary accounts can be given" (W. K. C. Guthrie) As I see it, "two" is basically an assertion of multiplicity. There can be more.David Kellogg_{May 31, 2009
May
05
May
31
31
2009
04:53 AM
4
04
53
AM
PDT}

Serendipity: In brief: 1 --> You are attacking a strawman. Self-evident truths are not proved (no-one has argued that they are proved -- and "warrant" [cf. Plantinga etc.] is very different from proof), they are accepted as seen true on understanding (and on pain of absurdity on rejection). They are first principles of right reason, taken as start points for warranting other things. 2 --> As you may see from me at 211 above as you allude to [and many other places, e.g. here], I am very familiar with the need for first plausibles as the feasible alternative to the absurdity of infinite regress. 3 --> Such first plausibles include self-evident truths, in which we may safely repose full confidence. However, to construct a full worldview, we cannot just rely on such points, save as guide-stars that help us find and fix errors. So, please stop setting up a strawman. (And merely to assert an objection is not to warrant it or to shift the burden of proof. Such an attempt is classic selective hyperskepticism.) 4 --> Next, look, again, at "error exists," to see why we can be fully confident in its truth. Namely, the attempted denial promptly lands one in self-refutation and thus absurdity. On understanding that, as minded creatures living in a common world, we see that we have every good reason to repose full confidence in it and in the cognates that attach to it. That is an exercise in trust, indeed, but it is warranted (as opposed to blind) trust; warranted on pain of absurdity on its attempted denial. (Similarly, as one who -- like millions of others -- has met God in the face of the risen, living Christ, I have no deductive proof of the existence of God on premises acceptable to all rational entities; but my trust in him as a person I know as I know my mother is as well-warranted as any other belief I may have. I -- and millions of others -- can no more doubt the reality of God than the reality of my mother. Of course God's existence is not self-evident; but it is evident to me -- and millions of others -- to full confidence. by contrast, my confidence in Newtonian dynamics is constrained by its known limitations, and my confidence in q-mech is provisional. But, I routinely risk life and limb on these theories; as do you -- if you drive [in] a modern, computer controlled car. To have a faith point is not to have a point that is not warranted as reasonable. Other wise, ALL of us would be by definition unreasonable! [For, we all have faith points.]) 5 --> You also merely assert that I have not provided a chain of warrant from "error exists" to that it is an instance of truth so that truth exists, indeed, truth that is warranted -- thus known in the strong sense, and that it exemplifies how self-contradictory claims end in absurdity and confusion. But as I have just summarised, you are looking at just such a chain of warrant in the face, as has been already given in more details above. 6 --> Finally, bodily events -- including human bodily (which includes the physical organ called the brain) events -- are just that: things that have a beginning and so are caused. This, I pointed out already, in speaking of three main causal factors: mechanical necessity, stochastic undirected contingency, and intelligence. 7 --> The intelligent mind or agent -- per our self experience and observation of other similar creatures -- evidently transcends the merely physical and acts in light of reason, volition and purpose. The attempted reduction of mind to matter in motion, a major and intellectually fashionable alternative in our day, ends in self referential incoherence. (Cf discussion here, in the context of the wider discussion that surrounds it; as already linked.) GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{May 31, 2009
May
05
May
31
31
2009
04:39 AM
4
04
39
AM
PDT}

Serendipity @ 416:
To submit that effects can occur without causes is to abandon causality altogether
If anyone has suggested that “effects can occur without causes” then I would disagree, for the simple reason that “every effect has a cause” is a tautology. It reduces (as I explained earlier) to stating that “all things that have causes have causes.” No tautology such as this is ever false unless the underlying logic itself is false.
Diffaxial @ 173:
“An effect cannot exist without a cause” is necessarily true in the same sense that “A doughnut cannot exist without a hole” is necessarily true (where a doughnut is defined as fried cake of sweetened dough baked into a ring.) It is literally the definition of an effect that it is “a change that is a result or consequence of an action or a cause.” Therefore it is true by definition that effects necessarily entail causes.
Serendipity @ 416:
However, I do think that the evidence suggests that events, not effects, can happen without being fully caused.
Diffaxial @ 173:
What does NOT follow is that “effect” is the only or the best descriptor of all events, because the dictionary can’t tell us whether and how the conceptual tool “cause and effect” actually attaches to objects in the world, or to the universe as a whole...Its status as “tautologically true,” the only sense in which it is “self-evidently true,” doesn’t help with that question.
Diffaxial_{May 31, 2009
May
05
May
31
31
2009
04:11 AM
4
04
11
AM
PDT}

Serendipity, If you study quantum physics you will see that the Uncertainty Principle did away with absolute mechanical necessity. Human minds exist in the present just as much as they are connected to the past and into the future. Consciosuness allows for the unique action of self awareness. Unpredictable particle events allow for action that is not traceable back to an exact mechanical action. Human behaviors are therefore in a state of flux. They are effects and causalities- and the casualties of their effects are not able to be fully formally expressed- as Godel showed with his incompleteness theorem we cannot prove where the original axioms being and end. Therefore mechanical necessity and "effect"- especially effect of the mind- may be an illusion. As human behaviors are connected to the mind they are at least partially liberated from any formal proof of their necessity as purely mechanical effects.Frost122585_{May 31, 2009
May
05
May
31
31
2009
02:33 AM
2
02
33
AM
PDT}

kairosfocus, I'm heading to bed, so I won't be able to respond in detail until tomorrow. However, I notice that you haven't addressed the key points I raised in my earlier comments: 1. Your argument is incorrect. As I explained above:
At some point kairosfocus must accept one of the meta-meta-…meta-arguments as true without being able to demonstrate its truth. In other words, he must accept it purely on faith, and he therefore might be wrong. His claim of absolute certainty is unjustified.
2. Your argument is also inconsistent with your earlier statements about "faith-points". 3. Despite your claim, you have not provided a "chain of warrant" linking "error exists" to other so-called "self-evident truths". If you disagree, please quote the portion of your comment that supports your claim, in your opinion. 4. You haven't answered Diffaxial's question:
Are human behaviors "effects"?
Please address these issues.serendipity_{May 31, 2009
May
05
May
31
31
2009
12:49 AM
12
12
49
AM
PDT}

David Kellogg, ------"I hold with the great thinker Protagoras that “there are two logoi, or accounts, to be given about everything”" Why not 3? Why not 17? Why not 42? And what's the second account to be given about giving second accounts?Clive Hayden_{May 31, 2009
May
05
May
31
31
2009
12:35 AM
12
12
35
AM
PDT}

PPPS: Einstein showed that on experiential evidence, it is not incoherent to see that spatially limited observer experienced time -- and particularly simultaneity of events -- is relative to the observer and his frame of reference. It is not and has never been the case that on denial of the idea of common global God's-eye time, incoherences immediately follow. (Try working out a physics in which there is a way in which absolute time exists, and see where that leads . . . [See, physicists can be a lot less doctrinaire than you think . . . ) So, given self-evident truth no 1, that error exists, that one may mistakenly think a particular claim is self-evidently true does not at all entail that all claimed self evident truths are not so. And indeed, a chain of warrant for a certain cluster of such truths is provided. All you have to do, now, is show the reasoning at 418 above to be incorrect . . .kairosfocus_{May 31, 2009
May
05
May
31
31
2009
12:12 AM
12
12
12
AM
PDT}

PPS: To expand a bit -- unless a causally necessary factor is in place, the event will not happen. Unless causally sufficient factors are in place, it will not happen. In the case of a fire, fuel, oxidiser and heart are each necessary and jointly sufficient for a fire. Take any away, and the fire will go out (or never get started). Put all three in place and a fire WILL start.kairosfocus_{May 30, 2009
May
05
May
30
30
2009
11:48 PM
11
11
48
PM
PDT}

PS: Serendipity: I have pointed out that so soon as there are necessary causes at work in Quantum phenomena, they are not properly "acausal." The notion that things begin to happen out of nowhere and nothing [space is not nothing, it has measurable properties and bubbles with energy . . . thus becomes a causal constraint, e.g. c is set by the measurable electrical and magnetic properties of space] for no reason with no dynamics [which can include forces of necessity, stochastic undirected contingency or intelligently directed contingency, in the general case], is not even magic; it is chaotically absurd; i.e. irrational. Why not take time to look specifically at the fire triangle example to see the reality and force of necessary (and not just sufficient) causal factors? Let's put it this way: [a] nothing can begin to happen unless all necessary causal factors are in place, and [b] nothing will begin to happen unless sufficient causal factors are in place -- which can include the overkill case. At the point of balance, we can define necessary and sufficient causal factors that are just enough to causally explain an effect. And, this obtains by force of self-evident logic, whether or not we have identified the sufficient causes or all necessary causes for any given case. Even, when we have reason to believe that our attempt to observe will itself become a sufficient cause to drastically and irretrievably alter the situation so that we may not observe the ab initio circumstance; as obtains thanks to the Heisenberg-Einstein principles of uncertainty on position-momentum and energy-time. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{May 30, 2009
May
05
May
30
30
2009
11:44 PM
11
11
44
PM
PDT}

Folks: Sigh! Diff's largely distractive outburst at 402 above would be funny, if it were not so sadly revealing of the peril a rising tide of relativist irrationality, toxic rhetoric and outright contempt-laced incivility pose for our civilisation. I guess, too -- since that is where he started [talk about a thinly veiled subtext of contempt!] -- I now need to start with a footnote on his outrageous and utterly unwarranted -- he could very easily have made a simple distinction if that was his real intent -- fallacy of the complex question:
I, the undersigned, freely confess to being a serial insomniac ["clap on the irons y'r honour; mebbe they will help me sleep . . . "], but have not now or at any time indulged in spousal abuse. So, I remark: one cannot stop what one has never started; i.e the answer to such complex question fallacies is obvious; and, I must immediately add: such an abusive question is utterly not parallel to the issue that "error exists" is self-evidently true, and that this claim is no mere verbal trick in support of allegedly dubious metaphysics. [In any case, I am on repeated, strong record in this blog and indeed in this thread, that worldviews as a whole (and scientific theories within them) are only warranted to best explanation, and that they all bristle with difficulties, so that the proper approach is comparative difficulties, not "proofs." Diff has raised a strawman; one laced with thinly veiled ad hominems.]
Now, back on the merits of the issue. 1 --> Is error about reality, or merely a matter of a term that appears in sentences? Let's see: from toddlerhood [and echoing Aristotle as long since cited above], we know that the truth says of what is, that it is, and of what is not, that it is not. So also, error misses that mark of accuracy of claims to reality, whether by accident or by intent. (That was not so hard, was it; nor does it commit us to any "reification" etc., i.e. to any particular metaphysical scheme. Just to a longstanding, plain old common sense consensus. It may contribute, later on, to clarifying which metaphysics makes best sense, but that is another story for another day.) 2 --> For now, we face a much more modest issue: "Error exists" is a candidate self-evident truth; which -- note, onlookers -- is precisely what Diff ducks addressing in his haste to rage over alleged complex questions and alleged verbal tricks. H'mm: Lost in the rhetoric of a red herring dragged across the track of the truth, then led out to a strawman soaked in a gratuitous and utterly irrelevant ad hominem and ignited to choke, poison and cloud the atmosphere. [BTW, notice also how hard some must labour to avoid the hint of a shadow of an implication that Truth exists (y'know, like propositions, numbers etc . . . and even, evil); and see, there is an easy way to see the difference! (Hint to Diff: it is a basic principle of serious civil dialogue that one speaks with reasonableness and takes a reasonable reading, not thinly veiled contempt or hostility, and twisting of issues into patent strawmen.) ] 3 --> Next, do such statements that fail to be accurate to reality exist? ANS: Yes, by general consensus. Indeed, Diff is at pains to try to correct what he perceives as errors. (And BTW Diff, there are many who wish to infer from alleged acausal quantum phenomena to general acausality; per "blind 'em with science." Just as, it used to be common to try to argue from the theory of relativity to the position of radical relativism on both knowledge and ethics.) 4 --> Is Josiah Royce making "a silly verbal trap"? Not at all, he -- a most distinguished American Philosopher, BTW -- was using the consensus about and the self-referential nature of the stated claim: "Error exists," to bring out a key (and often overlooked) implication of said general consensus that error is a reality we have to face. (And, I have given an in-brief, 101 level summary.) 5 --> Namely, to try to deny that error exists necessarily includes in its reference, the statement that "error exists" [if you will, as statements that are inaccurate to reality], so the attempted denial instantiates the claim; warranting it as undeniable. 6 --> That is, it is an undeniably true statement that "error exists." Putting that another way, denying that "statements exist that are inaccurate to reality" implies that this just last is an error, but in so doing frustrates the attempt by instead actually exemplifying its truth; i.e. ends up confirming it by immediate instantiation. 7 --> Thus, we see a case of a statement that is undeniably true, on pain of self-referential absurdity. It is a true statement, so truth exists, indeed, objective [beyond merely mental or subjective] and I daresay absolute [pure and unadulterated] truth. It is not only objectively true that error exists, but it is absolutely and undeniably true that error exists. 8 --> Also, the statement "error exists" is a case of warranted, true belief: knowledge in the strong sense exists, warranted as self-evident truth -- on pain of immediate absurdity immediately following from the attempted denial that as a matter of reality not mere words, error exists. (Notice, self evident truths are those that once we -- as minded creatures living in a common real world -- understand, we see are not just so, but that they must be so; on pain of patent absurdity, inconsistencies of various kinds and confusion. As a rule as well, as Adler aptly pointed out in his sobering essay on little errors in the beginning, such truths contain terms that strongly interact; so that we must spiral in on understanding through interaction with real-world instances; for example, unless we understand parts and wholes together, we can understand neither. But, once we do, we see immediately that a finite whole is and must be more than any of its proper parts.) 9 --> Moreover, the statement underscores the confusion that follows once we admit into our reasoning the idea that {A AND NOT-A} can both be true in the same sense at the same time. That is, it warrants the principle of non-contradiction by apt illustrative instance. 10 --> Then, finally, let us zero -in on the truth that is shown as real-world "truth no 1": error is real, especially for us finite and fallible thinkers. So, we need to be open to the possibility that we may in part be in error, and so need reliable guide-stars to get out of the morass of confusion triggered by errors. 11 --> So, once we see that his case warrants to self-evidence on pain of absurdity, a cluster of key points and principles of common-sense, right reason; we find that we have some warranted, true beliefs -- known, indeed, self-evident truths -- that serve as guide stars that will help us. Truths that we may deny only on pain of descent into incoherence, confusion and irrationality. Truths that we would do well to heed. 12 --> In this regard, let us observe carefully: in the end, even with qualifications, even while putting it in terms of "my truth" [i.e in effect "this seems true to me" . . . a characteristic problem of radical relativists is that they expect us to live by their personal standards without explaining why such personal truths are somehow generally applicable . . . ] and while still ducking the issue on the table, self evidence, Diff cannot deny the truth that error exists:
I certainly accept that there are true statements and there are statements in error (false statements), as reasonably verifiable by our employment of various conceptual (e.g. logical) and empirical tools. I don’t believe that commits me to the existence of “Error” and “Truth” as transcendent objects.
That should tell us a lot on the force of Josiah Royce's point. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{May 30, 2009
May
05
May
30
30
2009
11:28 PM
11
11
28
PM
PDT}

Diffaxial asks:
BTW: Are human behaviors “effects?”
My answer is "yes". However, I'm interested in how KF and StephenB would respond. As I remarked to KF, StephenB and Vividbleau:
It seems odd to me that you are uncomfortable with the idea of limited acausality, for as theists you seem comfortable with the idea of God as an uncaused cause and with the notion that both God and humans can make free choices which are themselves uncaused.
serendipity_{May 30, 2009
May
05
May
30
30
2009
11:12 PM
11
11
12
PM
PDT}

StephenB writes:
self-evident truths that underlie science cannot be proven. One either accepts them as a rational person or rejects them as an irrational person.
The idea that time flows at the same rate everywhere and in every circumstance used to be considered a self-evident truth that only an irrational person could deny. Do you think Einstein was irrational to reject it?
Current conceptions of science displaced earlier conceptions of science on the strength of the principle that both concepts could not be true and false at the same time. Explain how the new replaces the old if, in some circumstances, a proposition can be both true and false at the same time.
I personally accept the law of non-contradiction even in the context of quantum mechanics. It is the law of the excluded middle that fails in QM, in my opinion. For example, if it is true that the wavefunction of Schrödinger's cat remains uncollapsed, then I think it should be considered neither dead nor alive.
How does science correct itself with anything other than unchanging self-evident truths?
By reference to provisional beliefs rather than to "unchanging self-evident truths".
To submit that effects can occur without causes is to abandon causality altogether.
If anyone has suggested that "effects can occur without causes" then I would disagree, for the simple reason that "every effect has a cause" is a tautology. It reduces (as I explained earlier) to stating that "all things that have causes have causes." No tautology such as this is ever false unless the underlying logic itself is false. However, I do think that the evidence suggests that events, not effects, can happen without being fully caused.
If it can happen in one context, there is no reason to believe it may not happen in another context...Please explain why, if this principle can be abandoned once it cannot be abandoned a second time or third time. Under those circumstnaces, what good is the principle at all?
You seem to think that if a principle doesn't hold in all cases that it means that the principle can be arbitrarily abandoned. Not so. In physics, the conservation of parity was once considered an inviolable principle. In the mid 1950's, exceptions to this principle were discovered. According to you, physicists should have asked "why, if this principle can be abandoned once it cannot be abandoned a second time or third time. Under those circumstances, what good is the principle at all?" The answer, of course, is that the conditions under which the principle does and does not hold are specified. The same is true of the idea that events have causes.serendipity_{May 30, 2009
May
05
May
30
30
2009
11:00 PM
11
11
00
PM
PDT}

BTW: Are human behaviors "effects?"Diffaxial_{May 30, 2009
May
05
May
30
30
2009
08:58 PM
8
08
58
PM
PDT}

Serendipity:
Hi Diffaxial, I do take Royce’s reasoning seriously, and I think it can be restated in a way that avoids any implication that error is a transcendent object. To wit: “At least one false statement exists.” That is, itself, a statement, and by the logic of Royce’s argument it cannot coherently be asserted to be false.
Your version is better, as it removes the unjustified reification to which I referred in my post. But, as you say, it also removes the transcendent consequences. (And who needs proof that false statements exist?) The unjustified reification in the original version is obvious, as is the purpose of that reification: to move forthwith to "Truth exists" in the reified sense, do not pass Go and do not collect $200. I find those moves unjustified for the reasons I stated in my original post on this.Diffaxial_{May 30, 2009
May
05
May
30
30
2009
08:46 PM
8
08
46
PM
PDT}

Clive:
I reckon those of us who would disagree with your assessment would be irrational to you. I disagree with you wholeheartedly, but by your system of negating all of the above, I am still perfectly rational in doing so. Otherwise, if you claim that I’m irrational for disagreeing with you, then you’re setting the same trap that you’re begrudging KF for setting. You can’t have it both ways my friend.
I try to refrain from characterizing participants in discussions like this, and don't believe I have above. So I don't want to have it both ways.Diffaxial_{May 30, 2009
May
05
May
30
30
2009
08:35 PM
8
08
35
PM
PDT}

Clive, "I reckon those of us who would disagree with your assessment would be irrational to you." I can't speak for others, but that is not the case for me. I hold with the great thinker Protagoras that "there are two logoi, or accounts, to be given about everything" (trans. Kerferd).David Kellogg_{May 30, 2009
May
05
May
30
30
2009
05:37 PM
5
05
37
PM
PDT}

---serendipity: "At some point kairosfocus must accept one of the meta-meta-…meta-arguments as true without being able to demonstrate its truth. In other words, he must accept it purely on faith, and he therefore might be wrong. His claim of absolute certainty is unjustified." Of course. That is the whole point. The self-evident truths that underlie science cannot be proven. One either accepts them as a rational person or rejects them as an irrational person. Since no one else has taken up my challenges, perhaps you will venture forth. Current conceptions of science displaced earlier conceptions of science on the strength of the principle that both concepts could not be true and false at the same time. Explain how the new replaces the old if, in some circumstances, a proposition can be both true and false at the same time. How does science correct itself with anything other than unchanging self-evident truths? To submit that effects can occur without causes is to abandon causality altogether. If it can happen in one context, there is no reason to believe it may not happen in another context. Under the circumstances, there would be no way of knowing where or when those exceptions apply. Tell me by which standard you decide when effects can occur without causes and when they cannot. Please explain why, if this principle can be abandoned once it cannot be abandoned a second time or third time. Under those circumstnaces, what good is the principle at all?StephenB_{May 30, 2009
May
05
May
30
30
2009
05:24 PM
5
05
24
PM
PDT}

Diffaxial, ------"However, this newfound appreciation for the provisional, and the associated humility, is forgotten upon resuming your positions. Truths are again self-evident, conclusions are specified by definition, doors are closed a priori, there is nothing within our Self-Evident Truth to correct (because then it wouldn’t be Truth), and those who disagree are, by definition, irrational." I reckon those of us who would disagree with your assessment would be irrational to you. I disagree with you wholeheartedly, but by your system of negating all of the above, I am still perfectly rational in doing so. Otherwise, if you claim that I'm irrational for disagreeing with you, then you're setting the same trap that you're begrudging KF for setting. You can't have it both ways my friend.Clive Hayden_{May 30, 2009
May
05
May
30
30
2009
04:55 PM
4
04
55
PM
PDT}

A second point: even if we could be sure that "error exists" is an absolute truth (and we cannot, as I explain above), kairosfocus has not shown how to derive other "self-evident truths" from it. Conclusions: KF's argument is incorrect, as well as being inconsistent with his prior statements regarding "faith-points", and even if it were correct, it cannot carry the burden he has placed on it of justifying other so-called "self-evident truths".serendipity_{May 30, 2009
May
05
May
30
30
2009
04:41 PM
4
04
41
PM
PDT}

Diffaxial writes:
And I also certainly reject Royce’s silly verbal trap, and continue to be mystified that anyone takes reasoning of that kind seriously.
Hi Diffaxial, I do take Royce's reasoning seriously, and I think it can be restated in a way that avoids any implication that error is a transcendent object. To wit: "At least one false statement exists." That is, itself, a statement, and by the logic of Royce's argument it cannot coherently be asserted to be false. That said, kairosfocus is nevertheless wrong to claim that such statements cannot be doubted. In order to make such a claim, he would have to know that the logic Royce employs is correct, with absolutely no possibility of error. kairosfocus does not know this, and so the statement must be held provisionally, not absolutely. One obvious counterargument would be to point out that if Royce's logic is incorrect, then that incorrectness itself constitutes an instance of error, which means that Royce's conclusion holds absolutely after all. The problem with this gambit is that for it to work, we would have to know that the foregoing meta-argument is absolutely correct, with no possibility of error. And so on, from meta-argument to meta-meta-argument, to meta-meta-meta-argument, ad infinitum. At some point kairosfocus must accept one of the meta-meta-...meta-arguments as true without being able to demonstrate its truth. In other words, he must accept it purely on faith, and he therefore might be wrong. His claim of absolute certainty is unjustified. The odd thing is that kairosfocus has already admitted the necessity of taking certain fundamentals on faith:
Now, too, let us consider an abstract truth claim, say A. Why do we accept A? Because, in general, of evidence and/or argument, B. Immediately: why accept B? Thence, we see C, D, . . . leading to either an infinite regress (which is impossible for us), or else to a set of first plausibles, F. F, we may term, the faith-point. So, we see that our worldviews rest on points of faith, first plausibles that seem to us to ground our experience and understanding and knowing of the world — starting with the sense experiences and common-sense insights that for very good reason you routinely trust as you go about living. However, there are more elaborate faith-point beliefs, such as on the underlying nature of reality, ourselves in it, the origins of the world in which we live, its challenges, our hopes, and how we should then live. A world and life view, worldview for short. So we all live by faiths: the issue is, which one, why.
So his own position is inconsistent. On the one hand, he wants to take certain beliefs as absolute certainties; on the other, he admits that they rest on "faith-points" that must be assumed and cannot be shown to be absolutely true.serendipity_{May 30, 2009
May
05
May
30
30
2009
04:25 PM
4
04
25
PM
PDT}

----Diffaxial: "I certainly accept that there are true statements and there are statements in error (false statements), as reasonably verifiable by our employment of various conceptual (e.g. logical) and empirical tools. I don’t believe that commits me to the existence of “Error” and “Truth” as transcendent objects." What is a true statement? ---and can you give me a specific example?StephenB_{May 30, 2009
May
05
May
30
30
2009
04:07 PM
4
04
07
PM
PDT}

---David: In term of taking someone to court, I don't need legal action to make my arguments. Its the atheists and atheist sympathizers like yourself who must sue to get heard.StephenB_{May 30, 2009
May
05
May
30
30
2009
04:01 PM
4
04
01
PM
PDT}

----David Kellogg: "StephenB, I realize you haven’t offered that “proof” in this thread: here you and kairosfocus are beating your other favorite dead hobby horses." It really hurts when you have nothing to say, doesn't it? ---- just mention it because (a) I thought the 4th grade in Bible school an appropriate forum for that kind of proof. Children in the 4th grade who understand that something cannot come from nothing would seem to be one up on you. Actually, really good arguments are easily understood by children. Only a cynic like yourself would bristle at the prospect of a 4th grade child learning about first causes. In terms of taking someone to court,StephenB_{May 30, 2009
May
05
May
30
30
2009
03:57 PM
3
03
57
PM
PDT}

Diff: "So we end where we started, with science self-correcting and others…not." Earth to Diff the only way science can be self correcting is if the the foundational principles of logic are true for all circumstances. Otherwise science is finished. Oh the irony...the so called defenders of science are once again the thiests while the atheists on this thread undercut the very foundations of the scientific eneterprise. Vividvividbleau_{May 30, 2009
May
05
May
30
30
2009
03:46 PM
3
03
46
PM
PDT}

KF:
Again: error exists . . . true or false, deniable without absurdity or undeniably and self evidently true on pain of absurdity?
"Error exists." True or false. Here goes. One, two, three... Wait. Before I continue, I've called the police, as I have absolute proof that KF either has been or still is beating his wife. To deny it is to deny what is self-evidently true on pain of absurdity. My proof? Work through the following: "Kairosfocus has stopped beating his wife." True or false. Come clean KF. True or false? And I don't want to hear any mealy-mouthed evasions, qualifications or postmodern equivocation. A statement is either True, or it is False. Now, where was I? Oh yes. "Error exists." True or false. This needs disambiguation, as one possible reading of the statement reifies the modifier "in error" (as in "statement in error," better known as a "false statement") into a noun, namely "Error." Another possible reading, "statements in error exist," omits this reification. Like my statement regarding KF's problem with domestic violence, "Error exists" in the first sense smuggles in an unjustified premise: an object or thing, designated by a noun, is being said to exist. It is this smuggled premise that forces your conclusion: that Error (and hence Truth) is something that exists objectively, quite apart from individual statements and their verification. These reifications are, of course, encouraged by English usage, as using "the truth" and "error" as nouns is commonplace. Nevertheless, when Daniel Kaffee demands of Colonel Jessup "I WANT THE TRUTH," what he really wants him to do is to stop lying and utter true statements. That said: I certainly accept that there are true statements and there are statements in error (false statements), as reasonably verifiable by our employment of various conceptual (e.g. logical) and empirical tools. I don't believe that commits me to the existence of "Error" and "Truth" as transcendent objects. However, if you intend "Error exists" in the sense that reifies "Error," then I reject that as a false statement - a statement in error in the sense I DO accept - due to the unjustified reification. That rejection of your assertion as a statement in error in the sense I DO accept in the immediately preceding paragraph does NOT paradoxically affirm that "Error exists" in the reified sense. And I also certainly reject Royce's silly verbal trap, and continue to be mystified that anyone takes reasoning of that kind seriously.Diffaxial_{May 30, 2009
May
05
May
30
30
2009
01:25 PM
1
01
25
PM
PDT}

StephenB, I realize you haven't offered that "proof" in this thread: here you and kairosfocus are beating your other favorite dead hobby horses. I just mention it because (a) I thought the 4th grade in Bible school an appropriate forum for that kind of proof, and (b) I thought you might want to sue the dude for plagiarism.David Kellogg_{May 30, 2009
May
05
May
30
30
2009
12:48 PM
12
12
48
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 … 17 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply