Okay, so Thunderf00t goes after some new guy named Dan Brown and, I feel, took his argument out of context. First of all, half of his latest video bashing Dan Brown is a first a comparison between Dan and Glenn Beck and then Glenn Beck and a fictional propagandist from the V for Vendetta movie, who sounds like your typical Jerry Falwell type. So because Dan Brown slightly resembles Glenn Beck (I think he sounds and acts more like VlogBrothers, but that's just me), and because Glenn Beck slightly resembles a fictional propagandist who spouts religious nonsense, Dan Brown must be motivated by religious nuttery to have dropped out of school and rejected the University system of learning.
When I saw Thunderf00t, a self proclaimed PhD resort to such blatant and unwarranted character assassination, my jaw hit the floor. In one move, he committed a number of fallacies all at once, including: red heiring, hasty generalization, guilt by association and maybe even Godwin's law, depending on how loose a definition you give it. This is utterly inexcusable and I nave no more respect for the man, as if I had any left for a statist pigs.
It seems that Thunderf00t feels that only valuable career path is the one he took, so anybody who thinks that science isn't for them is basically jumping out of an airplane without a parachute. Does anybody see a problem with this analogy? Lots of people get college degrees and ever find the jobs they were promised and only find out, after the fact, that they actually needed more school then they were told they needed. Hell, I couldn't find a job with my Biology degree, so I had to go back and get my MLS so I could start my career as an applications scientist in hospital laboratories.
When Dan Brown says that information is free, he's saying that any information he needs is available to him practically free of charge if he's willing to apply himself to learn it on his own. Thunderf00t's example of the physics problem misses the point entirely. Why would anybody take the time to learn how to solve physics problems if they don't need to know how to do that? Would Thunderf00t dare to call an English professor or a Language expert inferior because they don't know how to solve physics problems? Strangely, I wouldn't put it past him. In my job, I need to have detailed knowledge of how blood clots, how the body's biochemistry works, how drugs affect the body, what cells in a person's blood indicate disease and what signs I need to look for when I suspect a patient has cancer. I also need to have in good understanding of basic statistics and data collection in order to ensure that my equipment is producing accurate results. I even need to know the principles and physics behind how my machines work so that I can repair them if they break down. But do I need to know physics problems to do my job? No, I don't. In fact, most people don't need to know what it is I do. I do that job that I do so that other people can do other things with their life, like get a PhD in a specialty field of Biology.
It may come as a surprise to Thunderf00t that people, like the cells of a developing fetus, tend to specialize into different rolls, and don't just do as they are told by society. Just because the heart can't think doesn't mean it isn't important or any less valuable then the brain. Thunderf00t's claim is that people of vision are people with PhDs, which has got to be the biggest load of elitist crap I've yet to here him say. Most of the major companies founded in the united states were founded by people who never got their college degree. These are the people who had true vision, these are the people who make enough money to higher PhDs, like Thunderf00t, to come up with new products and innovative ideas. Yet Thunderf00t makes himself out to be the self-sacrificing lamb who has given up riches for the sake of science and the betterment of humanity. Well, an't he just a bleeding heart Mother Teresa! It is hard to believe that even he would sink this low, then again I'd probably expect no less from somebody who thinks saving for retirement is a waste of money. We all know that, even though Thunderf00t doesn't get money from his videos (yet), he at least gets paid in mountains of praise from his loyal fans who will, at the slightest provocation, defend their secular messiah like zealous crusaders. Yes, I'm sure we've all dealt with these pseudo-skeptics and sophists on many occasions. No matter how rational or reasonable you are, your argument will always be "retarded because it is retarded" to them. You'd expect somebody like Thunderf00t to chastise his fans for such poor reasoning, but as we've all seen, Thunderf00t himself rejected philosophy in favor pure science, even though science is itself based on philosophy. Without philosophy, one becomes in danger of embracing dogmatic reasoning, as he currently suffers.
To add insult to injury, the idea that PhDs are necessarily visionaries is absurd! As one becomes more specialized in their field, the more narrow the scope of their discipline. Ergo, if a BS studies a door, and an MS studies a lock assembly, then a PhD studies one of the lock assembly's screws. In order to have a vision, one must have a wide scope, not some specialized understanding of one specific detail about life. In order to get a wide scope, one must have a wide range of different experiences, hence, this is why college drop outs start companies and why PhDs get jobs working for them.
What the hell has happened to Thunderf00t? His latest videos have been one sophomoric decline after another since his face-off with HTWW. And what ever happened between them, anyway? As I recall, Thunderf00t's last words to him were "Fall in line, swine, or your bitch ass is mine." Doesn't anybody remember that? I guess Thunderf00t realized that he'd made an error going after somebody like HTWW and not some dumb creationist like Ray "Banana Man" Comfort. Could their be any more proof that he's a coward who only prays upon soft targets with pwnage troll videos thinly veiled in scientific rhetoric? How many times have we pointed out that he continues to ignore his sharpest critics, ShaneDK, myself, Gun Criminal, MisterBusta, etc. The best he can do with anybody who backs him into a corner is to come back with some lame science experiment to distract everybody with. Then, as time goes by, he opens his big yap again, and starts to bash all the Libertarians.
Does anybody remember Thunderf00t's video on Scientology and how he thought the collective group efforts of anonymously self organised individuals who operate without government could take down an evil centralized power? Well, that's exactly what WE did to him when he started to trash us, and will do it again, even if he tries to make us look bad by showing another image of David Riddly's comedic funny faces or clips from anti-vaccine nutjob videos.
I'm glad some people recognize that college education isn't for them, and I'm glad that we live in a country that is still free enough to allow them to become successful anyway. College is expensive and does not ensure success in life or in career.
Thus concludes the end of my rant.
I feel much better now.
Peace to you all.
That was very well put.
You deserve a -1 on your bogometer just for getting through that video TF made attacking Dan. I only managed to get through about 10 seconds of it, before I get so enraged I had to stop watching.
However, I have a question:
Quote from: Ex_Nihil0 on March 09, 2010, 04:49:40 AMThunderf00t himself rejected philosophy in favor pure science, even though science is itself based on philosophy. Without philosophy, one becomes in danger of embracing dogmatic reasoning, as he currently suffers.
What do you mean by this statement?
Probably refferring to that "having a PHD renders you unable to say you were wrong" effect that James Randi warned us all about.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5hI6VY_rmE
QuoteWhat was it about Thunderf00t's video to an "educator" that you did not agree with? If you believe that people can learn a lot online(if this is your position), why do you think this? If this is not your position, what is?
-some Tf00t fantard on Shane's channel comments.
I'll just quote Bob Park (who has a PhD):
"There is no idea so insane that you cannot find at least one PhD scientist to support it."
In Thunderf00t's first video to Pogobat he didn't explain why being in class with a professor will automatically make the facts/knowledge better, as opposed to just learning them by oneself. He makes a point about no employer wanting to hire these kinds of know-it-alls, but I don't think anyone's implying that they'll walk in and even try to apply if they know they peruse Wikipedia 23 hours a day and have no other education. It's as if he's answering questions no one asked.
Anyway I'm mixed about formal education. I have a Bachelor's from an art school and though I'm glad I gradumacated and all, it hasn't been too useful which is why I want to go to an actual university and get an education in a hard science or academic subject later in life. That doesn't mean someone should be looked down upon for not going to school. If school was free, most people would go without thinking twice. But guess what? It's not fun to be in debt after 3-4 years and still not have a job due to employers wanting "hands-on" experience. Hell, my friend who's going for MSCE, A+, Network+, CCNA and all that good stuff, is saying to me employers are STILL giving new grads the runaround with this "requiring experience" B.S. I mean, a CCNA for God's sake!
Quote from: valvatica on March 09, 2010, 09:36:00 PM
In Thunderf00t's first video to Pogobat he didn't explain why being in class with a professor will automatically make the facts/knowledge better, as opposed to just learning them by oneself. He makes a point about no employer wanting to hire these kinds of know-it-alls, but I don't think anyone's implying that they'll walk in and even try to apply if they know they peruse Wikipedia 23 hours a day and have no other education. It's as if he's answering questions no one asked.
Anyway I'm mixed about formal education. I have a Bachelor's from an art school and though I'm glad I gradumacated and all, it hasn't been too useful which is why I want to go to an actual university and get an education in a hard science or academic subject later in life. That doesn't mean someone should be looked down upon for not going to school. If school was free, most people would go without thinking twice. But guess what? It's not fun to be in debt after 3-4 years and still not have a job due to employers wanting "hands-on" experience. Hell, my friend who's going for MSCE, A+, Network+, CCNA and all that good stuff, is saying to me employers are STILL giving new grads the runaround with this "requiring experience" B.S. I mean, a CCNA for God's sake!
Alot of that has to do with licensing laws and other regulations. People used to be able to take apprenticeships, for example. Why doesn't that happen now?
Spot on about Thunderf00t I think.
His videos that go outside debunking creationists have been pretty telling, I've lost respect for him because of them.
Quote from: LuminousMonkey on March 09, 2010, 10:25:03 PM
Spot on about Thunderf00t I think.
His videos that go outside debunking creationists have been pretty telling, I've lost respect for him because of them.
Word.
Quote from: surhotchaperchlorome on March 09, 2010, 10:40:52 AM
That was very well put.
You deserve a -1 on your bogometer just for getting through that video TF made attacking Dan. I only managed to get through about 10 seconds of it, before I get so enraged I had to stop watching.
However, I have a question:
What do you mean by this statement?
When Thunderf00t says he subscribes to "PERL", he's embracing verification over falsification. Without getting into philosophy of science, it means that Thunderf00t is taking the assumption that the universe is real as an absolute truth. This means Thunderf00t has proclaimed himself to be a purveyor of The Truth, with a capital "T", which is testament to his arrogance. In order for PERL (logical positivism repackaged) to work, it must be able to justify itself by its own standard of verification, which it can't. How can anything prove itself to be real without resorting to circular logic?
As Hume explained, the "real" world, if it exists, is inherently unknowable as it truly is. Science works to figure out the true nature of the real world through a process of induction. Though the scientific process seems to work great from an engineering standpoint, it will never give you ultimate truth, even though it is the best epistemological method we have to date.
Never trust anybody who says they know The Truth. It doesn't matter if they are called "reverend", "pastor", "teacher", "officer" or "doctor", because anybody who claims to know the unknowable is an automatic liar, and anybody who thinks their credencial entitles them to "special knowledge or understanding" is guilty of a fallacy.
Quote from: Ex_Nihil0 on March 10, 2010, 02:48:26 AM
When Thunderf00t says he subscribes to "PERL", he's embracing verification over falsification. Without getting into philosophy of science, it means that Thunderf00t is taking the assumption that the universe is real as an absolute truth. This means Thunderf00t has proclaimed himself to be a purveyor of The Truth, with a capital "T", which is testament to his arrogance. In order for PERL (logical positivism repackaged) to work, it must be able to justify itself by its own standard of verification, which it can't. How can anything prove itself to be real without resorting to circular logic?
As Hume explained, the "real" world, if it exists, is inherently unknowable as it truly is. Science works to figure out the true nature of the real world through a process of induction. Though the scientific process seems to work great from an engineering standpoint, it will never give you ultimate truth, even though it is the best epistemological method we have to date.
Never trust anybody who says they know The Truth. It doesn't matter if they are called "reverend", "pastor", "teacher", "officer" or "doctor", because anybody who claims to know the unknowable is an automatic liar, and anybody who thinks their credencial entitles them to "special knowledge or understanding" is guilty of a fallacy.
What about the null hypothesis?
Is that positivism?
Also, I would have thought his problem was refusing to look at what evidence there is for free market economics. :\
On a more humorous note, am I the only one who thinks Dan Brown sounds a lot like Azrienoch when he speaks? I'm talking about the voice, not the mannerisms.
Quote from: surhotchaperchlorome on March 10, 2010, 11:21:57 AM
What about the null hypothesis?
Is that positivism?
Also, I would have thought his problem was refusing to look at what evidence there is for free market economics. :\
I don't think the null hypothesis is logical positivism.
I think that if you are using the null hypothesis as a disproof of something that lacks evidence, then yes, it would be logical positivism. But if the null hypothesis is taken as an assumption in the absence of evidence for the alternative hypothesis, then that's fine. As an assumption, one must be willing to abandon the null hypothesis should the current or new alternative hypothesis be show to be reasonably correct.
On the other hand, if you are a neopragmatist, your thinking is that science can only prove things false, and that belief and doubt require equal justification. In other words, the alternative hypotheses are never prove true under any circumstances, but when they are proven false, the null hypothesis becomes true (if it is worded in such a way that it is true when the alternative hypothesis is false). Under neopragmatic assumptions, both the alternative and null hypothesis have equal weight in the absence of any evidence or scientific test. In other words, you take on a more pyrrhonian skepticism and reserve judgment for both until all the facts are in.
Let's say you keep loosing money out of your pocket. You think that the money fairies are steeling your cash.
To put this into context, we have:
Alternative hypothesis: Fairies are steeling your cash.
Null Hypothesis: Fairies are not steeling your cash.
No matter what, you simply can't prove nor disprove that fairies had anything to do with your missing money because their is no such think as a fairy detector. A Logical Positivist would say that because fairies can't be farified, the null hypothesis is true because anything that can't be verified experimentally or tautologically isn't real. A neopragmatist, on the other hand, would say that although faries may have something to do with the theft of money from your pocket, it is of no practical use to know this even if true. Pragmatically, the question simply doesn't matter, so why bother if your goal is to solve a mystery and possibly advance science? If your goal is to advanced metaphysics, then that's a different matter outside the scope of this thread. The point is that it doesn't matter if fairies are real or not because they have nothing to do with science.
Let's look at the problem again. You keep loosing money, and you suspect it is your son steeling from you.
Alternative Hypothesis: Your son is robbing you.
Null Hypothesis: Your son is not robbing you.
It isn't possible to know with 100% certainty that your son stole your money, but it is possible to gain a statistical probability that he has been steeling based on the weight of evidence, such as finding the money in his room or his finger prints being on it. You may also set up a camera to catch him in the act. Although this is no proof of past theft, it is proof of theft as it was captured on film. You could, however, run a test to see if your son did not steal your money by checking for an alibi. Confirming that your son was some place else during the time of theft disproves the alternative hypothesis, meaning that the null hypothesis is true (your son did not steal from your wallet).
In the absence of evidence, your son may still have robbed you, but the null hypothesis becomes the safest assumption if one must be made. Never the less, you may still have a feeling that your son stole the money, which may turn out to be true, but this is not proof. Remember that the null hypothesis is just that, a hypothesis, so you really can't prove it true in the absence of evidence, even if it seems like a safe assumption. Never the less, the alternative hypothesis must be shown to be false in order for the null hypothesis to be know as factually true and not an assumption.
I do not feel that assuming the null hypothesis to be true in the absence of evidence is a valid way of conducting science, however, since the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. In matters of law, however, it is better to assume innocents (the null hypothesis) over guilt (the alternative hypothesis) since the consequences of sending an innocent man to jail are considered far worse then setting a guilty man free. The former is a mater of epistemology, while the later is a mater of ethics. You'll often see arguments over the null hypothesis conflate epistemology and ethics in this way, and I find it rather dishonest, or at least misguided.
Do not confuse assumption with belief. These are two different things.
Quote from: Ex_Nihil0 on March 11, 2010, 04:40:43 AM
I don't think the null hypothesis is logical positivism.
I think that if you are using the null hypothesis as a disproof of something that lacks evidence, then yes, it would be logical positivism. But if the null hypothesis is taken as an assumption in the absence of evidence for the alternative hypothesis, then that's fine. As an assumption, one must be willing to abandon the null hypothesis should the current or new alternative hypothesis be show to be reasonably correct.
On the other hand, if you are a neopragmatist, your thinking is that science can only prove things false, and that belief and doubt require equal justification. In other words, the alternative hypotheses are never prove true under any circumstances, but when they are proven false, the null hypothesis becomes true (if it is worded in such a way that it is true when the alternative hypothesis is false). Under neopragmatic assumptions, both the alternative and null hypothesis have equal weight in the absence of any evidence or scientific test. In other words, you take on a more pyrrhonian skepticism and reserve judgment for both until all the facts are in.
Let's say you keep loosing money out of your pocket. You think that the money fairies are steeling your cash.
To put this into context, we have:
Alternative hypothesis: Fairies are steeling your cash.
Null Hypothesis: Fairies are not steeling your cash.
No matter what, you simply can't prove nor disprove that fairies had anything to do with your missing money because their is no such think as a fairy detector. A Logical Positivist would say that because fairies can't be farified, the null hypothesis is true because anything that can't be verified experimentally or tautologically isn't real. A neopragmatist, on the other hand, would say that although faries may have something to do with the theft of money from your pocket, it is of no practical use to know this even if true. Pragmatically, the question simply doesn't matter, so why bother if your goal is to solve a mystery and possibly advance science? If your goal is to advanced metaphysics, then that's a different matter outside the scope of this thread. The point is that it doesn't matter if fairies are real or not because they have nothing to do with science.
Let's look at the problem again. You keep loosing money, and you suspect it is your son steeling from you.
Alternative Hypothesis: Your son is robbing you.
Null Hypothesis: Your son is not robbing you.
It isn't possible to know with 100% certainty that your son stole your money, but it is possible to gain a statistical probability that he has been steeling based on the weight of evidence, such as finding the money in his room or his finger prints being on it. You may also set up a camera to catch him in the act. Although this is no proof of past theft, it is proof of theft as it was captured on film. You could, however, run a test to see if your son did not steal your money by checking for an alibi. Confirming that your son was some place else during the time of theft disproves the alternative hypothesis, meaning that the null hypothesis is true (your son did not steal from your wallet).
In the absence of evidence, your son may still have robbed you, but the null hypothesis becomes the safest assumption if one must be made. Never the less, you may still have a feeling that your son stole the money, which may turn out to be true, but this is not proof. Remember that the null hypothesis is just that, a hypothesis, so you really can't prove it true in the absence of evidence, even if it seems like a safe assumption. Never the less, the alternative hypothesis must be shown to be false in order for the null hypothesis to be know as factually true and not an assumption.
I do not feel that assuming the null hypothesis to be true in the absence of evidence is a valid way of conducting science, however, since the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. In matters of law, however, it is better to assume innocents (the null hypothesis) over guilt (the alternative hypothesis) since the consequences of sending an innocent man to jail are considered far worse then setting a guilty man free. The former is a mater of epistemology, while the later is a mater of ethics. You'll often see arguments over the null hypothesis conflate epistemology and ethics in this way, and I find it rather dishonest, or at least misguided.
Do not confuse assumption with belief. These are two different things.
Don't take this the wrong way, FlowCell, but I only got through the first two paragraphs of that before I started to see too many words I didn't know and don't have the will or strength to look up.
I'm still convinced that you went a distance of 100 meters when you only needed a displacement of 2 meters with all of this.
I'm no philosophy buff, and I really don't care about it (outside of the philosophy of liberty of course) and I don't have the same problems as Thunderf00t in this at all.
TF's problem is really quite simple:
1. A dogmatic refusal to look at the evidence that contradicts his deeply held convictions about democracy and the "collective" (however it is defined) and about the free market.
At the risk of opening a can of worms, I find myself easing away from the Philosophy of science discussions because the message of them seems to be, "Well you don't know it all, so deal with it!" or some kind of original sin-type of thing like that.
I don't recall science ever "claiming" to know everything or even to try to.
As QualiaSoup explains in his videos, Science thrives on openmindedness and on change.
In fact, changing what we DO know and not taking it as absolute is how science progresses.
So, (assuming I'm not misunderstanding what the philosophy of science stuff is getting at), it seems it is:
1. Strawmanning how science works period and/or
2. making a mountain out of a mole hill.
Quote from: surhotchaperchlorome on March 11, 2010, 12:46:18 PM
Don't take this the wrong way, FlowCell, but I only got through the first two paragraphs of that before I started to see too many words I didn't know and don't have the will or strength to look up.
I'm still convinced that you went a distance of 100 meters when you only needed a displacement of 2 meters with all of this.
I'm no philosophy buff, and I really don't care about it (outside of the philosophy of liberty of course) and I don't have the same problems as Thunderf00t in this at all.
I've just begun studying philosophy AFTER getting my biology degree and working a few years at the bench, and I've concluded that it is a woefully underestimated and underappreciated discipline, since it undergirds just about every other discipline you could think of. Remember that philosophy is ultimately about asking questions; it isn't about getting answers. I'm sorry you thought I was too wordy, but I've got to admit I tend to get that way when I explain things. I like to be as detailed as possible. BTW, I didn't know you were convinced of anything in the first place. Do you have any other concerns you feel I should address?
Quote from: surhotchaperchlorome on March 11, 2010, 12:46:18 PM
TF's problem is really quite simple:
1. A dogmatic refusal to look at the evidence that contradicts his deeply held convictions about democracy and the "collective" (however it is defined) and about the free market.
All very true.
Quote from: surhotchaperchlorome on March 11, 2010, 12:46:18 PM
At the risk of opening a can of worms, I find myself easing away from the Philosophy of science discussions because the message of them seems to be, "Well you don't know it all, so deal with it!" or some kind of original sin-type of thing like that.
Um, that sounds more like what a strong theist would say. In fact, the wording of your examples suggests a strategy for arguing from ignorance. It's sort of like when Ken Ham tells the ignorant skulls full of mush to respond to evolutionary biologists with the question "Were you there?", and then promptly tell those same skulls full that "God said it, it's in the Bible, so that settles it." In other words, they are saying that because abductive reasoning (detective work) does not reveal truth, but a highly probable explanation, the Bible must be right because it proclaims itself to be The Truth (with a capital "T"). This is little more then an argument from ignorance buttressed with circular logic. This, of course, is not what I am saying at all. Quite the contrary, in fact.
As they say, what is good for the goose is good for the gander, so when Ken Ham says "Where you there?", the question is just as valid to ask of him, because he wasn't around when the Bible was written. Thus, he has no claim to The Truth, but neither does the evolutionary biologist. What the evolutionary biologist does have, however, is the scientific method and statistical probabilities for the things that he or she can observe, and that's the difference between them. Anyway, this should all be stuff you've heard before.
I am curious, though, how you thought original sin related to what I was talking about. It makes me think that some of your definitions differ from my own, and that's causing some confusion.
Quote from: surhotchaperchlorome on March 11, 2010, 12:46:18 PM
I don't recall science ever "claiming" to know everything or even to try to.
Nope, I don't think anybody with a proper understanding of science would ever make such a claim, either, though I have heard some people say that eventually science will reveal all knowledge to man, though I find that very hard to accept. What you might be confusing is logical positivism, which holds to the verification principle, which means that in order for a statement to be cognitively meaningful, it must be experimentally verifiable or tautologically verifiable. The problem with the verification principle is that it does not fulfill its own standard for cognitive meaning. This is why verification was replaced by falsification, and why absence of evidence is neither evidence of absence nor evidence of any any statement being true.
Quote from: surhotchaperchlorome on March 11, 2010, 12:46:18 PM
As QualiaSoup explains in his videos, Science thrives on openmindedness and on change.
Yes, you've got to be open minded, but not so open minded that your brain falls out. But the real advancement comes from showing that assumptions are either false or still valid. Every single theory in science is an assumption, and even though it may be a good assumption, every theory must be scrapped when sufficient evidence invalidates it, proving the null hypothesis.
Quote from: surhotchaperchlorome on March 11, 2010, 12:46:18 PM
In fact, changing what we DO know and not taking it as absolute is how science progresses.
I agree with that mostly. My only quibble is that if you have to change what you know based on the evidence, was it something you knew in the first place? That depends on if you are defining knowledge as all information, or all true information. Because, otherwise, science is based on figuring out what the most likely assumptions are based on the most current and ever changing preponderance of the evidence. Although we would love to work with facts of 100% certainty, this is not possible, so we pragmatically stick with our best assumptions because we have nothing else that works better at any given moment in time.
Quote from: surhotchaperchlorome on March 11, 2010, 12:46:18 PM
So, (assuming I'm not misunderstanding what the philosophy of science stuff is getting at), it seems it is:
1. Strawmanning how science works period and/or
2. making a mountain out of a mole hill.
I'm not fully sure how you come to this conclusion. What I have presented is the best understanding of the science of philosophy that I know of. This may seem trivial to you, but I feel this is a rather important philosophy because it strips everybody of being purveyors of The Truth, which means government is naked of its legitimacy to make law beyond the protection of Liberty. It no longer has the absolute authority to do so, or rather, it never did. I'd hardly call that a mole hill.
Does that make sense?
I would like to start out by saying that both when I posted that, and a bit as I post this, I'm still somewhat burned out. Just to give you a heads up if I come off as capricious or unnecessarily confrontational.
Quote from: Ex_Nihil0 on March 11, 2010, 07:39:04 PM
I've just begun studying philosophy AFTER getting my biology degree and working a few years at the bench, and I've concluded that it is a woefully underestimated and underappreciated discipline, since it undergirds just about every other discipline you could think of. Remember that philosophy is ultimately about asking questions; it isn't about getting answers. I'm sorry you thought I was too wordy, but I've got to admit I tend to get that way when I explain things. I like to be as detailed as possible. BTW, I didn't know you were convinced of anything in the first place. Do you have any other concerns you feel I should address?
I will address my concerns below as they come up.
Quote from: Ex_Nihil0 on March 11, 2010, 07:39:04 PMAll very true.
Glad to know we agree on that. :)
Quote from: Ex_Nihil0 on March 11, 2010, 07:39:04 PMUm, that sounds more like what a strong theist would say. In fact, the wording of your examples suggests a strategy for arguing from ignorance. It's sort of like when Ken Ham tells the ignorant skulls full of mush to respond to evolutionary biologists with the question "Were you there?", and then promptly tell those same skulls full that "God said it, it's in the Bible, so that settles it." In other words, they are saying that because abductive reasoning (detective work) does not reveal truth, but a highly probable explanation, the Bible must be right because it proclaims itself to be The Truth (with a capital "T"). This is little more then an argument from ignorance buttressed with circular logic. This, of course, is not what I am saying at all. Quite the contrary, in fact.
Except that WASN'T an argument, so much as an admission that I'm not very well versed in this stuff and to beg pardon if I'm mis-characterizing the philosophies in question.
I suppose I could have worded that better, and I do apologize for the confusion.
Quote from: Ex_Nihil0 on March 11, 2010, 07:39:04 PMAs they say, what is good for the goose is good for the gander, so when Ken Ham says "Where you there?", the question is just as valid to ask of him, because he wasn't around when the Bible was written. Thus, he has no claim to The Truth, but neither does the evolutionary biologist. What the evolutionary biologist does have, however, is the scientific method and statistical probabilities for the things that he or she can observe, and that's the difference between them. Anyway, this should all be stuff you've heard before.
True.
Quote from: Ex_Nihil0 on March 11, 2010, 07:39:04 PMI am curious, though, how you thought original sin related to what I was talking about. It makes me think that some of your definitions differ from my own, and that's causing some confusion.
I thought it was related because the feeling I got from the stuff about "no one knows the truth" just reeks of post-modernism.
Quote from: Ex_Nihil0 on March 11, 2010, 07:39:04 PMNope, I don't think anybody with a proper understanding of science would ever make such a claim, either, though I have heard some people say that eventually science will reveal all knowledge to man, though I find that very hard to accept. What you might be confusing is logical positivism, which holds to the verification principle, which means that in order for a statement to be cognitively meaningful, it must be experimentally verifiable or tautologically verifiable. The problem with the verification principle is that it does not fulfill its own standard for cognitive meaning. This is why verification was replaced by falsification, and why absence of evidence is neither evidence of absence nor evidence of any any statement being true.
The only way I can see that as being true is if the verification is taken as absolute, which, last time I checked, it isn't.
It DOES mean that there is no reason to believe something if there is no evidence for it.
Do you believe in Unicorns or say, "Well, they might exist, or they might not"?
Last time I checked it was not logically possible to prove a negative.
That's the point of verification. I would have thought that to be the point of verification.
Quote from: Ex_Nihil0 on March 11, 2010, 07:39:04 PMYes, you've got to be open minded, but not so open minded that your brain falls out.
True. One of the reasons I stay out of philosophy. :P (Well, that and a general lack of honest interest, time and desire.)
Quote from: Ex_Nihil0 on March 11, 2010, 07:39:04 PMBut the real advancement comes from showing that assumptions are either false or still valid. Every single theory in science is an assumption, and even though it may be a good assumption, every theory must be scrapped when sufficient evidence invalidates it, proving the null hypothesis.
Define "assumption".
A theory in science is merely an explanatory framework onto which the current set of facts fit.
Right.
Quote from: Ex_Nihil0 on March 11, 2010, 07:39:04 PMI agree with that mostly. My only quibble is that if you have to change what you know based on the evidence, was it something you knew in the first place? That depends on if you are defining knowledge as all information, or all true information. Because, otherwise, science is based on figuring out what the most likely assumptions are based on the most current and ever changing preponderance of the evidence. Although we would love to work with facts of 100% certainty, this is not possible, so we pragmatically stick with our best assumptions because we have nothing else that works better at any given moment in time.
I'm talking practical knowledge.
You learn more as you refine techniques in experimentation, find consequences in theories that are to be tested, etc.
I would think all true information, but then I wouldn't be certain.
Right, as Matt Dilahunty once said, "Get rid of this [assertion/point? I can't remember the word he used] about absolute certainty. Absolute certainty is just a red herring used to distract from more important matters."
Quote from: Ex_Nihil0 on March 11, 2010, 07:39:04 PMI'm not fully sure how you come to this conclusion. What I have presented is the best understanding of the science of philosophy that I know of. This may seem trivial to you, but I feel this is a rather important philosophy because it strips everybody of being purveyors of The Truth, which means government is naked of its legitimacy to make law beyond the protection of Liberty. It no longer has the absolute authority to do so, or rather, it never did. I'd hardly call that a mole hill.
Well, if what you mean is to find another justification for Locke's idea of "all people being born equal"; that is, not to tear people down, but rather to use as a philosophical mechanism to show why no-one has claims higher than the other, then I can get on board with that.
This point is also confirmed by both the Wisdom of Crowds and the Calculation Problem of Socialism (as explained by Ludwig von Mises).
In which case, yes, I suppose you can argue that it isn't a mole hill, if the above is what I meant.
Quote from: Ex_Nihil0 on March 11, 2010, 07:39:04 PMDoes that make sense?
More than before, yes.
To be fairly honest, this thread needs
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3063/2963609700_af384097a6_o.jpg)
Quote from: surhotchaperchlorome on March 12, 2010, 11:02:40 PM
I thought it was related because the feeling I got from the stuff about "no one knows the truth" just reeks of post-modernism.
Actually, Hume was one of the first to point out the problem of induction and that the "real world", if it exists, is inherently unknowable. He's one of the first really famout atheist philosophers, though he never admitted such because doing so would have gotten him killed back then. He was certainly not post modern.
Quote from: surhotchaperchlorome on March 12, 2010, 11:02:40 PM
The only way I can see that as being true is if the verification is taken as absolute, which, last time I checked, it isn't.
It DOES mean that there is no reason to believe something if there is no evidence for it.
Do you believe in Unicorns or say, "Well, they might exist, or they might not"?
Last time I checked it was not logically possible to prove a negative.
That's the point of verification. I would have thought that to be the point of verification.
Well, if you are a pure rationalist, you can believe in something a priori (logically discovered) while the empiricists were the ones who thought perception was superior to logic. This is why guys like Descartes (pure rationalist) generally believe in God, while guys like Hume (an empiricist) generally do not.
The problem with verification is that it isn't supported by it's own standard. That is, in order for something to be cognitively meaningful, it must either be experimentally provable or tautologically demonstrable. The principle of verification, however, cannot fulfill it's own standard of cognitive meaning, making it meaningless nonsense! This is why you don't see logical positivist hanging around anymore, though many still try to revive verification. Falsification, however, is better because it is relatively easy to prove something false, while truly impossible to prove something true (thanks in part to the problem of induction).
Do not confuse proving something false as the same as proving a negative. Falsification is about disproving positive claims, not negative ones. This is why a good null hypothesis is written so that it MUST be true of the positive claim (or alternative hypothesis) is true. Actually, it is impossible to both prove negatives and positives as true. Disproving positive claims is all that science is capable of. Experiments and observations can only confirm and bust myths, but it can never prove them true.
Quote from: surhotchaperchlorome on March 12, 2010, 11:02:40 PM
Define "assumption".
A theory in science is merely an explanatory framework onto which the current set of facts fit.
An assumption is when one takes a given fact or statement for granted.
Yes, Theories are explanations for given facts and are best described in terms of how wrong they are, since they become less wrong as science improves. Theories, however, are not Truth because they are always wrong or incomplete. A theory, in this sense, should be thought of as the best explanation given a set of facts for a phenomena. You've always got the annoying possibility, however remote, that everything is not as was previously thought.
Quote from: surhotchaperchlorome on March 12, 2010, 11:02:40 PM
I'm talking practical knowledge.
Knowledge is only practical to the point of your ability to use it. If you had access to ultimate truth and you discovered that God and unicorns were real, for example, would that be of any use to you? No. So it is possible to know something that it true, hypothetically speaking, that is completely useless. God and Unicorns are useful concepts to religion and metaphysics, not science and engineering. Another example would be that we all live in a perfect simulation made to look perfectly real. Like God and Unicorns, even if this were true, it is useless to science and engineering. I'm suddenly beginning to realize what the whole "separate Magesteria" thing was all about for Stephen J. Gould. It's all about what ideas are useful to what disciplines.
Quote from: surhotchaperchlorome on March 12, 2010, 11:02:40 PM
You learn more as you refine techniques in experimentation, find consequences in theories that are to be tested, etc.
Yes.
Quote from: surhotchaperchlorome on March 12, 2010, 11:02:40 PM
I would think all true information, but then I wouldn't be certain.
Quote from: surhotchaperchlorome on March 12, 2010, 11:02:40 PM
Right, as Matt Dilahunty once said, "Get rid of this [assertion/point? I can't remember the word he used] about absolute certainty. Absolute certainty is just a red herring used to distract from more important matters."
Well, if what you mean is to find another justification for Locke's idea of "all people being born equal"; that is, not to tear people down, but rather to use as a philosophical mechanism to show why no-one has claims higher than the other, then I can get on board with that.
Yes, if nobody has claim to absolute truth, then nobody has higher authority over another since we are all born with the same knowledge of absolute truth: zero. I suppose that would be a more neopragmatic view of tabula rasa. Wow, you just helped me come up with that. That seems like the perfect modernization of Lockes political theory. Having access to absolute truth would seem to me, at least, to be the only logical reason anybody would have natural authority in the first place. Thankfully, it's absence from the human mind means natural liberty instead.
Its like of like telling a PhD to fuck off when he asks you to bend over for a Venus project. He's just a man of science promising you heaven and has become no different then his religious counterparts in the Church leadership.
And now for some Cowbell: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlqLLZQLNiA
Quote from: Ex_Nihil0 on March 13, 2010, 06:42:29 AM
Actually, Hume was one of the first to point out the problem of induction and that the "real world", if it exists, is inherently unknowable. He's one of the first really famout atheist philosophers, though he never admitted such because doing so would have gotten him killed back then. He was certainly not post modern.
Sounds post-modernist to me.
Well at least based on what little I know about that stuff, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. :)
True, but the closest we seem to get is via the scientific method and the wisdom of crowds.
One of many reasons I *heart* science and free market economics. :P
Quote from: Ex_Nihil0 on March 13, 2010, 06:42:29 AMWell, if you are a pure rationalist, you can believe in something a priori (logically discovered) while the empiricists were the ones who thought perception was superior to logic. This is why guys like Descartes (pure rationalist) generally believe in God, while guys like Hume (an empiricist) generally do not.
I don't believe in god for the simple reason that there is no evidence, and thus, no reason to. :P
You can't logically prove a negative last time I checked, only a positive.
Quote from: Ex_Nihil0 on March 13, 2010, 06:42:29 AMThe problem with verification is that it isn't supported by it's own standard. That is, in order for something to be cognitively meaningful, it must either be experimentally provable or tautologically demonstrable. The principle of verification, however, cannot fulfill it's own standard of cognitive meaning, making it meaningless nonsense! This is why you don't see logical positivist hanging around anymore, though many still try to revive verification. Falsification, however, is better because it is relatively easy to prove something false, while truly impossible to prove something true (thanks in part to the problem of induction).
How is the idea that repeated observations aren't more reliable than ones that don't repeat isn't tautologically demonstrable?
Quote from: Ex_Nihil0 on March 13, 2010, 06:42:29 AMDo not confuse proving something false as the same as proving a negative. Falsification is about disproving positive claims, not negative ones. This is why a good null hypothesis is written so that it MUST be true of the positive claim (or alternative hypothesis) is true. Actually, it is impossible to both prove negatives and positives as true. Disproving positive claims is all that science is capable of. Experiments and observations can only confirm and bust myths, but it can never prove them true.
Ooooooh, OK. That first point clears up a lot. Thank you.
Explain what you mean by "prove positives and negatives as true" and "disproving positive claims".
I think that might be a place where my confusion is stemming from.
Quote from: Ex_Nihil0 on March 13, 2010, 06:42:29 AMAn assumption is when one takes a given fact or statement for granted.
True, which can be a bad thing when the assumption needs to be called into question (e.g. friction = zero for a Newtonian problem), and that you assumed it is taken for granted, and somewhat forgotten. So that can be problematic, if that's what you mean.
Quote from: Ex_Nihil0 on March 13, 2010, 06:42:29 AMYes, Theories are explanations for given facts and are best described in terms of how wrong they are, since they become less wrong as science improves. Theories, however, are not Truth because they are always wrong or incomplete. A theory, in this sense, should be thought of as the best explanation given a set of facts for a phenomena. You've always got the annoying possibility, however remote, that everything is not as was previously thought.
It would be a spectrum though. For example, on the scale of 0 to 1 (0 = False; 1 = Truth), I would imagine biblical creationism being closer to the 0 than is the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection.
And how is that a bad thing if you find out it was "wrong"?
It means you learn something, and can use the new theory to engineer more and improve the systems more.
Quote from: Ex_Nihil0 on March 13, 2010, 06:42:29 AMKnowledge is only practical to the point of your ability to use it. If you had access to ultimate truth and you discovered that God and unicorns were real, for example, would that be of any use to you? No. So it is possible to know something that it true, hypothetically speaking, that is completely useless. God and Unicorns are useful concepts to religion and metaphysics, not science and engineering. Another example would be that we all live in a perfect simulation made to look perfectly real. Like God and Unicorns, even if this were true, it is useless to science and engineering. I'm suddenly beginning to realize what the whole "separate Magesteria" thing was all about for Stephen J. Gould. It's all about what ideas are useful to what disciplines.
True. Well, I was referring to what Matt Dilahunty was talking about when I said "practical knowledge".
Basically what we can know to be true (lowercase t) with a reasonable level of certainty.
Quote from: Ex_Nihil0 on March 13, 2010, 06:42:29 AMYes, if nobody has claim to absolute truth, then nobody has higher authority over another since we are all born with the same knowledge of absolute truth: zero. I suppose that would be a more neopragmatic view of tabula rasa. Wow, you just helped me come up with that. That seems like the perfect modernization of Lockes political theory. Having access to absolute truth would seem to me, at least, to be the only logical reason anybody would have natural authority in the first place. Thankfully, it's absence from the human mind means natural liberty instead.
Oh, so THAT's what you meant in your video about liberty when you said, "All people are born equal for the same reason all people are born atheists: all of us are born without knowledge."
Quote from: Ex_Nihil0 on March 13, 2010, 06:42:29 AMIts like of like telling a PhD to fuck off when he asks you to bend over for a Venus project. He's just a man of science promising you heaven and has become no different then his religious counterparts in the Church leadership.
If he does so by authority, then absolutely.
Especially since the Venus project is just long refuted communism/socialism repackaged (but we won't go there. ;) )
Quote from: Ex_Nihil0 on March 13, 2010, 06:42:29 AMAnd now for some Cowbell: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlqLLZQLNiA
Yay! Cowbell! ;D
Ha! Yeah, I can see now why you thought I was being post modern. No, that's relativism. What I have presented is neo-pragmatism, which is largely epistemology. Moral realtivims is ethics, which is a different branch of philosophy. On the contrary, neopragmatism is an attempt to be rational about what we can and cannot know for certain, in spite of the limitations of human perception.
No, I am a deontologist, meaning that I don't like greater good or relativist morality, because those moralities are meaningless. I like the moral philosophy of Liberty by Locke and Kant's Categorical Imperative.
Anyways, back on topic, there is something a bit odd about Thunderf00t's reaction (based on what FlowCell wrote) that I find a bit revealing; something that no one else here has pointed out that needs to be said.
In college/university most of the learning you do is on your own; you're considered responsible for learning and understanding the material and being able to apply it.
The rule of thumb is 2 to 5 hours of studying out of class for every hour in class (depending on what university you go to).
The fact that thunderf00t doesn't seem to know this brings into question whether or not he's a professor, or if he's even BEEN to college in the first place.
As far as I'm concerned, the fact that the students ourselves are responsible pretty much refutes the idea that we *need* full time professors to lecture to us as the default model.
I mean, couldn't we just have groups of students pool resources and learn by ourselves, and teach one-another?
With maybe a part-time professor to help when problems come up?
As ladyattis noted in his reply to Thunderf00t's asshole video, the fact is, universities are so damn bureaucratic now, it seems to be boarding on ridiculous.
That's what I was originally talking about on Thunderf00t's video. He doesn't elaborate on why the professor, being in the classroom/auditorium, etc. make all the difference in learning. Unless the students take turns reading an entire book out loud like in elementary school (can you picture trying to get through a 900-page textbook that way?), the student inevitably reads most of the book himself on his own time. If he wants to argue "students can't get lab experience studying by themselves" that's a whole other argument.
Quote from: valvatica on March 16, 2010, 06:14:52 PMThat's what I was originally talking about on Thunderf00t's video.
My apologies, I forgot you mentioned that.
Quote from: valvatica on March 16, 2010, 06:14:52 PMHe doesn't elaborate on why the professor, being in the classroom/auditorium, etc. make all the difference in learning. Unless the students take turns reading an entire book out loud like in elementary school (can you picture trying to get through a 900-page textbook that way?), the student inevitably reads most of the book himself on his own time.
Like I said; that Thunderf00t doesn't seem to understand this suggests to me that not only is he not a professor, but has probably never gone to college.
When ConfederalSocialist/Fringeelements first said that Thunderf00t is just a guy with too much spare time on his hands, I shrugged it off.
Now, I think CS might be onto something.
Quote from: valvatica on March 16, 2010, 06:14:52 PMIf he wants to argue "students can't get lab experience studying by themselves" that's a whole other argument.
And even then, why would they *need* the university structure as it exists today?
Why not just have the student offer to work for little at the labs and engineering firms themselves like Mary J. Ruwart and others did before regulation, minimum wage laws, taxation, etc made it impossible to do so?
That way, they'll get work experience, some money
and figure out if the job is something they'll like and want to do within a few months at most, instead of having to find out after spending over 4 years and shitload of money at a college to learn by themselves and get lectured to by a professor.
Quote from: surhotchaperchlorome on March 16, 2010, 04:58:12 PM
As ladyattis noted in his reply to Thunderf00t's asshole video, the fact is, universities are so damn bureaucratic now, it seems to be boarding on ridiculous.
Totally not on topic, but am I the only one that actually refers to ladyattis as a "she"?
Just to address Thunderf00t's status as a professor, I think he's way to young to be one, especially if he works at a major university. He is likely an applications scientist (meaning he does nothing but crank out "science") working for a real professor's research project. This is why Thunderf00t calls himself an "educator" in quotes. Since it looks like he works at a university lab, he's obviously thumbed his nose at higher paying jobs in Industry. That means his livelihood is based on the collection of tax money given to his university in the form of grant money. I can tell you for certain that working at a university as a research staff member doesn't hardly pay anything worth mentioning. This is why Thunderf00t seems to have humble travel accommodations. If he worked in Industry, he'd likely afford a better car. Could it be any more clear that this is a man rebelling against modern economics and supply and demand?
I will say this about Thunderf00t. Although he doesn't get paid for his videos as a YouTube partner, he gets paid a fortune in accolades and praise from his rabidly adoring troll fans. And that is something money can't buy.
FYI, the few videos of his that do have ads are likely there because of copyright infringement. Instead of his video getting hit with a DMCA, YouTube collects advertising money on behalf of the copyright holder. Usually, if you have ads on a video that is banned in Germany, it is probably because of copyright infringement claims, not false flagging (but I could be wrong).
Quote from: VectorM on March 17, 2010, 04:23:49 AM
Totally not on topic, but am I the only one that actually refers to ladyattis as a "she"?
I did too until I learned that he was a he.
I tell you, that was my biggest disapointment of 2009.
I've known she was a he since way back when he tried to get on Free Talk Live's Shrine of Female Listeners.
Quote from: VectorM on March 17, 2010, 04:23:49 AM
Totally not on topic, but am I the only one that actually refers to ladyattis as a "she"?
Sidenote: A few weeks ago I asked her what pronoun she prefers, she said he or she is fine.
Quote from: MrBogosity on March 17, 2010, 06:50:34 AM
I've known she was a he since way back when he tried to get on Free Talk Live's Shrine of Female Listeners.
Even MORE off topic: Congratulation on your 1000th post! :D :D
@LuminousMonkey: Thanks! I've been meaning to ask him that. :)
@Gumba Masta: lol!
@VectorM: After reading his profile saying that the person is transgendered, I figured it was a he...or something.
@FlowCell: True, but then Industry has been pretty unstable, at least where I live because of economic interventionism (e.g. they won't hire us engineers unless we have a specialty, etc)...but then I think we all know how to fix that issue. ;)
I always knew she was a he, yet I still refer to him as "her". Just seems right, even thought it isn't ::) I would prefer to be called a "she" if I was in his position.
And I think that when TF refers to himself as an "educator",he means "Educator ON YOUTUBE", while still hinting that he is a real teacher/professor. That way if he gets called on it, he can just shrug it off and say "EDUCATOR ON YOUTUBE, ON YOUTUBE, BOLLOCKS AND ICECREAM PANCAKES" (really, is he British or what? What is that accent damn it?!?)
Thunderf00t should stick to science videos. His other videos are horrible and telling about his character.
I made it 1:55 into the video and quit. Thunderf00t sucks when it comes to politics and basically anything but science.
Quote from: BZ987654 on March 17, 2010, 10:15:00 PM
I made it 1:55 into the video and quit. Thunderf00t sucks when it comes to politics and basically anything but science.
You made it THAT far???
Damn. I couldn't get through the first 10 seconds of that horrible video...
Quote from: surhotchaperchlorome on March 17, 2010, 11:01:30 PM
You made it THAT far???
Damn. I couldn't get through the first 10 seconds of that horrible video...
I was hoping for the best but fearing the worse.
Sorry to raise this topic from the dead, but I wanted to speak about thunderf00t for a moment and figured it would be better to not make a whole new subject.
Coughlin666's recent pissing match with thunder has made me realize that thunderf00t is just as much of a woo as the Creationist's he goes against. He'll spend hours debating VFX or some other mentally retarder creationist because he knows he'll curb stomp them. Yet, when someone like Shane shows how much his economic thoughts are BS, he doesn't respond or in that one case, show's a nutball and claims that he represents all libertarians.
Anyone think we should try to storm the next LOR get together and see if we can make the topic economics?
Quote from: FSBlueApocalypse on July 31, 2010, 07:25:30 PM
Anyone think we should try to storm the next LOR get together and see if we can make the topic economics?
Err, no?
Mainly because it takes more than three of us to storm anything.