Slate: No Faith In Science

[PeterMP]

One of the more interseting thoughts in my opinion is maybe the simulators aren't human.

 

Then thinking about how we should behave is really interesting.

 

**EDIT**
I will point out that I've never said strongly this is a simulation.  In fact, I've repeatedly said, I don't know what the probability is that is or isn't a simulation.

[alexey]

For sure philosophy has a history of empirical thinkers like John Locke. Hume's problem of induction is perhaps the best objection to such empiricism.

Regardless, reason is something else, and I think there are some necessary truths arrived at rationally. I'll give some examples.

1. All bachelors are unmarried men.

2. Square circles are impossible.

3. A proposition cannot be both true and false.

4. 1+1=2

5. The angles of a triangle total 180 degrees.

Makes sense.

Let me make focus on the "knowledge" and "reason" aspects of my point.

I understand that different schools of philosophy may have different positions on the term "knowledge" and the term "reason". Some schools may deny these terms to discovery and application of patterns. Other schools may say that using experience to predict the future is the quintessential example of discovering knowledge and applying reason.

Latter schools may take an issue with the statement you made earlier:

Strictly speaking, reason does not tell you you will come down when you jump, experience does.

I understand that philosophy rarely provides an ability to prove one metaphysical model over another.

Empirical thinkers (like those in the observational sciences) do assume this. However it is not necessary in the way those rational truths are. It is based only on experience, as contrasted from those rational truths based on reason alone.

I am still uncomfortable with calling it an "assumption".

I think that I made a good point earlier that we should not generalize metaphysics of individual people onto the whole enterprise.

Some people may have faith.

Some people may assume.

Some people may accept the premise.

I think these people would have different reactions in case stuff suddenly stopped working the way it did before. These reactions would be telling:

faith - this is the end of the world

assume - i did not realize this could happen

premise - looks like my premise does not hold, i need to re-evaluate my model of the world

In this thread we had people arguing that it's all faith, or that it's all assumptions. I am arguing that all three are possible, that individuals may have different metaphysical model, and that it would be incorrect to assert a particular metaphysical model on the whole enterprise (unless, of course, one can be proven correct).

Notice that I am the only one not attempting to assert my metaphysics on other people here!

Another thing to think about here is the possibility of simulations within simulations. Eventually we arrive at questions of the limits of computational capacity.

When discussing possibilities of simulations within simulations within simulations, I think we hit the limit of usefulness before we hit the limit of computational capacity.

[PeterMP]

Notice that I am the only one not attempting to assert my metaphysics on other people here!

 

You might want to read the piece that you posted in the OP again and reconsider why you made that post (and/or acknowledge the straw man argument there based on your current argument).

 

And re-read post 108 (and I've already requoted the relevant part to you once in this thread).

[alexey]

Peter,

I am very familiar with your arguments and I did my best to explain mine. This is a free country and you are free to think that I am using faith.

[PeterMP]

Peter,

I am very familiar with your arguments and I did my best to explain mine. This is a free country and you are free to think that I am using faith.

 

Just to be clear, the OP is clearly concluding and stating that a subset of people have "faith".

 

"I think that I made a good point earlier that we should not generalize metaphysics of individual people onto the whole enterprise."

 

That sentiment or the idea that other people might define faith somewhat differently than you currently are in this thread, is COMPLETELY missing in the OP.

[alexey]

Just to be clear, the OP is clearly concluding and stating that a subset of people have "faith".

 

"I think that I made a good point earlier that we should not generalize metaphysics of individual people onto the whole enterprise."

 

That sentiment or the idea that other people might define faith somewhat differently than you currently are in this thread, is COMPLETELY missing in the OP.

I see the author arguing against pushing the word "faith" onto people who would say the word "faith" does not apply to them.

[PeterMP]

I see the author arguing against pushing the word "faith" onto people who would say the word "faith" does not apply to them.

 

Let me quote the final line of the piece in the OP:

 

"So the next time you hear someone described as a “person of faith,” remember that although it’s meant as praise, it’s really an insult."

[alexey]

Let me quote the final line of the piece in the OP:

"So the next time you hear someone described as a “person of faith,” remember that although it’s meant as praise, it’s really an insult."

Yes I feel insulted when you say I have faith but i respect your right to say it.

[PeterMP]

Yes I feel insulted when you say I have faith but i respect your right to say it.

 

They aren't talking about the person that is hearing it.  They are talking about it meant as praise with respect to the person it is being said about or to and it being an insult.

 

They are saying if I say my mother and wife are people of faith, that it should be considered an insult to them.

[alexey]

I don't know how anybody can assert that you mean an insult when you mean praise.

[PeterMP]

I don't know how anybody can assert that you mean an insult when you mean praise.

 

It is YOUR post.  Here it is again:

 

"So the next time you hear someone described as a “person of faith,” remember that although it’s meant as praise, it’s really an insult."

 

If YOU hear ME call somebody else a "person of faith" YOU are supposed to remember it is an insult.

 

If YOU hear me call my mom a person of faith, you are supposed to consider me having insulted her.

[alexey]

It is YOUR post. Here it is again:

"So the next time you hear someone described as a “person of faith,” remember that although it’s meant as praise, it’s really an insult."

If YOU hear ME call somebody else a "person of faith" YOU are supposed to remember it is an insult.

If YOU hear me call my mom a person of faith, you are supposed to consider me having insulted her.

The article suggests that when people mean to praise their loved ones by calling them a "person of faith", the language actually means they are calling them a person who pretends to know things they do not know. You are free to disagree.

[PeterMP]

The article suggests that when people mean to praise their loved ones by calling them a "person of faith", the language actually means they are calling them a person who pretends to know things they do not know. You are free to disagree.

 

The OP is based on some combination of ignorance and/or intelletcutally dishonest.

 

As I pointed out to you in the other thread, people don't use the word faith to describe knowleged (e.g. know) or to pretend, and it isn't defined that way in reference sources.

 

In most cases when somebody is a person of faith, they mean:

 

they have a "belief and trust in and loyalty to God ".

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith

 

And if he doesn't know what people mean when they say a person is a "person of faith" then maybe he should try asking somebody that says it before deciding it is an inslut.

 

Now, if that was the ONLY issue with the OP, it MIGHT be okay.

 

BUT it is an attack on such beliefs, which don't tend to be supported by evidence that we can easily evaluate the quality of (and so therefore is subjective in nature), while simulatenously trying to bolster similar beliefs (i.e. people should believe antibiotics are effective because they were effective in the past, which assumes that the past is a good predictor of the future, for which the quaility of the evidence supporting that claim cannot easily be evaluated andn so is subjective).

 

What the piece is doing is saying that belief A, for which the evidence for is not quantative and is subjective, is bad.

 

But belief B, for which the evidence for is not quantative and is subjective, is good.

 

Because they want people to believe B and not A.

 

It is either stupid, ignorant, dishonest, or some combination there of.

[alexey]

...

In most cases when somebody is a person of faith, they mean:

they have a "belief and trust in and loyalty to God ".

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith

And if he doesn't know what people mean when they say a person is a "person of faith" then maybe he should try asking somebody that says it before deciding it is an inslut.

...

He is reminding that faith also means "b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof"

You can follow his advice or not but you cannot ignore it. Next time you want to praise a loved one, tell them they are a person of love, compassion, kindness.

[PeterMP]

He is reminding that faith also means "b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof"

You can follow his advice or not but you cannot ignore it. Next time you want to praise a loved one, tell them they are a person of love, compassion, kindness.

 

While trying to tell people it is okay to have a firm belief that antibiotics are going to work because they worked in the past, even though it has not been proven (and cannot be proven) that the past is a good predictor for the future.

[alexey]

Peter what the ****???

Yes I get it, you want to say faith in antibiotics is like faith in Jesus. That's what you want to believe. That's fine with me. Just make sure you take your kids to a ****ing doctor when they get sick instead of just praying for them and watching them die. And please tell all other "people of faith" to do the same.

[PeterMP]

Peter what the ****???

Yes I get it, you want to say faith in antibiotics is like faith in Jesus. That's what you want to believe. That's fine with me. Just make sure you take your kids to a ****ing doctor when they get sick instead of just praying for them and watching them die. And please tell all other "people of faith" to do the same.

 

It is a belief of mine, but it is a belief based on my understanding of statistics and probablities.  Let me generalize your statements:

 

What is the probability that the past predicts the future?

What is the probability that a god exist?

 

What is the probability that the past is a good predictor of the future?  I do not know how to rigorously determine a solution.  I know that I cannot say that it does not (the idea has not been disproven and so I know the probability is 0), and I cannot say that it does (the idea has not been proven so the probability is 1).

 

Some might argue that at least the way the question is phrased, that there are two possibilites and I should assign the probability as 50%.  I don't have a strong argument against that point, but my preference would be simply to say that I should assign some value that I'm unsure of between 0 and 1.

 

The same argument hold with respect to the exsistence of a god.

 

I do not know how to rigorously determine a solution.  I know that I cannot say that it does not (the idea has not been disproven and so I know the probability is 0), and I cannot say that it does (the idea has not been proven so the probability is 1).

 

Some might argue that at least the way the question is phrased, that there are two possibilites and I should assign the probability as 50%.  I don't have a strong argument against that point, but my preference would be simply to say that I should assign some value that I'm unsure of between 0 and 1.

 

If you want to put forth a rigorous argument that we should assign a higher probability to that the past predicts the future than we should to god exist, I'd love to see it.

[alexey]

Peter i do not want to rigorously debate with you any longer. You can call it all faith. I will not.

All I really care about is helping people and not harming people. I think that the "holy book" kind of faith harms people and the "antibiotics" kind of faith helps people.

The former is a bad idea and the later is a good idea. The former is a myth and the latter is a fact. I am only calling the latter "faith" in order to communicate to you the way you seem to prefer.

[alexey]

Peter,

Here is another way of looking at this discussion.

You are concerned about whether facts exist.

I am concerned about the difference between fact and myth.

You are saying that facts may not be actual for-real-for-real facts. I agree with that. However, that does not diminish the difference between facts and myths.

[PeterMP]

Peter,

Here is another way of looking at this discussion.

You are concerned about whether facts exist.

I am concerned about the difference between fact and myth.

You are saying that facts may not be facts. I agree with that. However, that does not diminish the difference between facts and myths.

 

What is the difference between a myth and a fact if there is not more/better evidence that the fact is a fact than that the myth is a fact?

 

Look, it is abundantly clear, you want to go around and spew your talking points without any concern over whether they can be rigorously supported.

 

You want to embrace science, which requires rigorous support of arguments (in the context of the assumptions it makes), but when it comes to other argument, where it is inconvient to you, you want to throw those ideas out the window and still act like your ideas have some support in science.

 

And then declare what believe is good is good, what you believe is bad is bad, what you believe is good is a "fact" and what you believe is bad is a "myth".

 

And when asked to rigorously defend your ideas, you want to insult the competing ideas (call them absurd (which you did in the other thread) without addressing them), mischaracterize them (compare them to the spaghetti monster (which you did in this thread)), run away and not defend them (which you did in the previous post), use words with loaded meanings (which you did in the last two posts), and try and change the topic slightly to distract from the fact that you can't/won't rigorously defend your ideas.

 

"What the piece is doing is saying that belief A, for which the evidence for is not quantative and is subjective, is bad.

 

But belief B, for which the evidence for is not quantative and is subjective, is good.

 

Because they want people to believe B and not A.

 

It is either stupid, ignorant, dishonest, or some combination there of."

 

That's what the OP is doing, that's what you always do when we discuss this particular topic, and your latest point is just a restatement of the same stupid, ignorant, and dishonest ideas that you started with and will result in us circling around to the same place from a slightly different perspective.

 

And if I'm wrong, go back up to any of the other several posts where I asked you to rigorously defend your ideas and do it.

 

And stop trying to play word games.

[alexey]

What is the difference between a myth and a fact if there is not more/better evidence that the fact is a fact than that the myth is a fact?

..

If there is not more/better evidence, then there is no difference between fact and myth.

Now if you will excuse me, I shall go sacrifice a goat to secure a bountiful harvest next year.

[dchogs]

While trying to tell people it is okay to have a firm belief that antibiotics are going to work because they worked in the past, even though it has not been proven (and cannot be proven) that the past is a good predictor for the future.

Come on, Peter.

The whole simulation argument that throws "everything" in doubt isn't a good one. It just isn't. Sure it may be theoretically possible that we are the playthings of a higher race living in the matrix as prisoners that can't see their bars. It might win you points in a debate. But come on. You can justify ANYTHING when some mythical being can always just change the rules. When I take antibiotics, I think they will work because they have before. When I let go of a pen, I think it will fall because it has every time before. If things change on me, then I'll adjust my line of thinking and reasoning. It isn't Faith- at best, it is faith, and there is a difference. To argue otherwise is playing word games to force me into your paradigm against my will.

[PeterMP]

Come on, Peter.

The whole simulation argument that throws "everything" in doubt isn't a good one. It just isn't. Sure it may be theoretically possible that we are the playthings of a higher race living in the matrix as prisoners that can't see their bars. It might win you points in a debate. But come on. You can justify ANYTHING when some mythical being can always just change the rules. When I take antibiotics, I think they will work because they have before. When I let go of a pen, I think it will fall because it has every time before. If things change on me, then I'll adjust my line of thinking and reasoning. It isn't Faith- at best, it is faith, and there is a difference. To argue otherwise is playing word games to force me into your paradigm against my will.

 

If there is a difference, somebody should be able to put up some real evidence that there is a difference.

 

And I just use the simulation to make the general point.  I'm as happy to talk about the possibility that the universe is in some thermodynimcal non-minimal state that has a high degree of local kinetic stability (i.e. the state is unstable, but getting to a new state is slow for some reason).

 

But that it might change to another (more thermodynamically stable) state locally and/or globally quickly.

 

And there is evidence that things that we thought were constants might vary in a local manner consistent with local changes in the universe:

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/05/050512120842.htm

 

(and other possibilities)

 

If when you get on an airplane, thinking that there is a low probability that the plane won't crash because a bunch of planes didn't crash yesterday is a good way of thinking, then somebody should be able to rigorously defend that point.

 

Somebody should be able to say, I'm going to take into account these different possibilites and come up with at least some ball park figure of what the probability of a plane crashing today based on information from yesterday.

 

And here's how I'm going to do it.

 

Otherwise, a paradigm that says that sort of idea (i.e. getting on a plane is safe because I bunch of planes didn't crash yesterday) is different than many others is just word games.

 

You want to say you're different, then the burden of proof is on you.

[alexey]

Peter,

I am not sure if you are serious. I hope that this is a mere philosophical exercise for you and I certainly hope you will use modern medicine in case you get sick.

Let me stress this. Please use medicine and advocate that other people do too. Please do so even if you think that evidence for healing with medicine is not different from evidence for healing with shamanism. This is where beliefs hit the road and people can (and do!!!) get hurt.

[PeterMP]

Peter,

I am not sure if you are serious. I hope that this is a mere philosophical exercise for you and I certainly hope you will use modern medicine in case you get sick.

 

I am serious, but I also take modern medicine.

 

I'm an agnostic theist with repsect to the idea that past predicts the future.

 

I don't have really good evidence that it does so I wouldn't say that I have knowledge that it does, but I believe (I have faith) that it does.

 

(Which is the response I gave you in the other thread to similar questions)