Defining the nature of rational discussion!

[cwes99_03]

He is very definitely wrong about what I am doing as neither you or he have any comprehension of what I am talking about. If you did, you wouldn't be making the comments you are.

:sigh: And, so it continues. I suggest reading the forum rules.

 

A first rule of debate, is not to insult the intelligence of your constituents, nor that of your opposers. This you have failed at time and time again.

A second rule is when you make a claim as the one above, site specific examples. You have yet to site examples of where we go wrong, you just insist we have and that we can't seem to comperhend your thoughts. Apparently we can't, but you yourself have not changed that.

Then we are clearly not talking about the same thing and I have no idea why you wish to continue. I have no interest in the categories you are talking about.

Why don't you try and explain yourself again, this time in a short concise post? Make a summary of your point.

 

My stand: The way you have presented your material, we believe that you are making an error. Your continued use of the word "squirrel" apparently confuses us, in that we see the actions of a squirrel and the decisions it makes as rational/logical, thus when you use the term squirrel to define non-logical thinking, you are using a word that in the traditional sense does not describe non-logical thinking.

 

It would be like use the word black but in quotations to mean white. They are opposites, and you simply cannot redefine the one to mean another because you feel like it. Instead you use other words that may have similar characteristics. Hence, to use the adjective snowy to describe something as white would be much closer than squirrel to define a non-logical type of reasoning.

 

I persist, because you keep making mistakes. Put forth better answers!

 

I remember someone defined a word once as trying to do something the same way over and over again, but since the method is flawed, it makes no sense to keep trying to do something the same way over and over again. Maybe this is your squirrel logic, since it is illogical, and I've fallen into some great ruse that you cooked up to prove a point.

Cheers.

[Doctordick]

I really have no idea how to respond to you. :doh: We appear to be 180 degrees out of phase with regard to how we think. Your reasons for complaint elude me as throughly as my thoughts seem to elude you. For the moment, I will try to take you seriously and try to understand your comments. :eek:

...we can't seem to comperhend your thoughts. Apparently we can't, but you yourself have not changed that.

 

Why don't you try and explain yourself again, this time in a short concise post? Make a summary of your point.

Why? Because first I have to figure out why you are totally failing to follow my thoughts. :D And I had no intention of insulting your intelligence; I simply thought you had made no attempt to follow me and had no intention of doing so. My impression was that you were just trolls, throwing up trash to confuse people. :eek:

... we believe that you are making an error.

If that's the case, then point out the error – please. :eek:

Your continued use of the word "squirrel" apparently confuses us...

I think you have made that clear and it seems to me that it is little more than a sign of your unwillingness to reason on an abstract level. :eek:

It would be like use the word black but in quotations to mean white. They are opposites, and you simply cannot redefine the one to mean another because you feel like it.

Why not? :doh: So long as the usage is consistent, the validity of logic doesn't depend upon the symbols used in the syllogisms. :) I personally would have no difficulty at all following such an argument. What a word really means has utterly no bearing upon the validity of deductive logic. Your comments do little more for me than convince me you simply have no interest in logic. :friday:

Instead you use other words that may have similar characteristics. Hence, to use the adjective snowy to describe something as white would be much closer than squirrel to define a non-logical type of reasoning.

You again make it clear that you do not read what I write. :eek: I did not use it to reference non-logical reasoning; I used it to reference reasoning which was not "formal deductive logic", quite a different thing. :eek: And I still believe squirrels are an excellent example of what I am talking about. If you really believe squirrels think things out in terms of "formal deductive syllogisms" I think you should spend more time with them. :eek:

I persist, because you keep making mistakes. Put forth better answers!

I would suggest you make yourself clearer. All I can get out of your posts is that you believe anyone who does not think along the lines you like to think along is "making mistakes". :doh: And exactly what questions are you asking me to answer? I re-examined your posts and I only found two question marks: "(how many times have you ever encountered a completely new phenomena?)" and "What do you think you are doing?" I find the first pretty meaningless because any answer presumes one's world view is valid (a rather un-defendable proposition in any serious discussion) and the second is the subject of the thread: trying to present a position on "Defining the nature of rational discussion!" :friday:

I've fallen into some great ruse that you cooked up to prove a point.

Cheers.

Maybe that's all it is guy. As a matter of fact, I am trying very hard to prove a subtle point that, apparently, no one wants to confront. They sure do go a long way off the subject to avoid thinking about it. :fly:

 

For anyone who takes the trouble to read this, I will try to make a summary of my attempt to point out how "squirrel" conclusions (for "cwes" that would be conclusions not defended by "formal deductive logic") can be taken into account without presuming their validity. I will first repeat my definitions of the base symbols I will use to represent an arbitrary explanation:

To summarize: A is what is to be explained, C is what is known, B is a change in what is known, label-i is a reference to the ith element of B (if the number of elements in B is finite they may be ordered as part of the explanation) and P(B) is a function which yields one's expectations for a specific B if the explanation is to be taken to be valid. Note that I am proposing no "truth" here. What I am proposing is a mechanism for referring to the significant aspects of "an explanation" so that we can talk about that explanation without knowing what it is (to us it is an unknown; that is the central issue of "working in the abstract").

The set C must include all the information necessary to learn the language being used to express the explanation (because understanding of language itself can not be achieved by "formal deductive logic" alone). And the final point is that the actual notation used to denote the references called label-i is a totally open issue (any symbols may be used as their meanings must be deduced from the information itself). :)

 

The final point which must be understood (another point avoided like the plague by everyone) in order to discuss the set of all possible explanations (without introducing invalid constraints) involves the difference between what is known and what is believed to be known. Clearly, these two components cannot be separated from one another by any mechanism consistent with the explanation as they must both exactly obey the rules of the explanation (the explanation would be invalid if they didn't). On the other hand, from the abstract overview they, nonetheless, are constrained by violently different rules and that characteristic must be clearly comprehended as it has far reaching logical consequences. :eek:

 

At the risk of upsetting people who cannot wrap their minds around original concepts I introduce two more new terms: "knowable" and "unknowable" to label the two components above. The term "knowable" will refer to A, the thing which is to be explained; whereas "unknowable" will refer to those things the explanation presumes to exist which are not actually part of A. The first set is "knowable" in the sense that, being what is to be explained, it must be part of all possible reliable explanation of A whereas the second set is "unknowable" in the sense that reliable explanations may exist which do not require these components and thus they cannot be regarded as necessarily "knowable". :doh:

 

A little thought should convince anyone that the "knowable" things are set and are completely outside the theorist's control while the "unknowable" things are figments of his imagination and may be whatever he wants them to be so long as they facilitate his explanation. They are in fact, elements of the explanation and not actual elements of A. If proposing their existence makes the theorist's theory more reliable (or simplifies the rules of that theory) it behooves him to do so. :fly:

 

At this point I believe I have presented all the fundamental concepts one needs in order to lay out a very simple explanation capable of explaining absolutely anything. If I can get some evidence that anyone out there comprehends what I mean by these philosophically alien concepts which I have brought forth above, I will lay out the exact mechanical procedure for creating that "fundamental explanation". :friday:

 

Have fun -- Dick

 

Knowledge is Power

and the most common abuse of that power is to use it to hide stupidity

[cwes99_03]

Deleted because of an accidental double post.

[cwes99_03]

For anyone who takes the trouble to read this, I will try to make a summary of my attempt to point out how "squirrel" conclusions (for "cwes" that would be conclusions not defended by "formal deductive logic") can be taken into account without presuming their validity. I will first repeat my definitions of the base symbols I will use to represent an arbitrary explanation:

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doctordick

To summarize: A is what is to be explained, C is what is known, B is a change in what is known, label-i is a reference to the ith element of B (if the number of elements in B is finite they may be ordered as part of the explanation) and P(:friday: is a function which yields one's expectations for a specific B if the explanation is to be taken to be valid. Note that I am proposing no "truth" here. What I am proposing is a mechanism for referring to the significant aspects of "an explanation" so that we can talk about that explanation without knowing what it is (to us it is an unknown; that is the central issue of "working in the abstract").

 

The set C must include all the information necessary to learn the language being used to express the explanation (because understanding of language itself can not be achieved by "formal deductive logic" alone). And the final point is that the actual notation used to denote the references called label-i is a totally open issue (any symbols may be used as their meanings must be deduced from the information itself).

 

The final point which must be understood (another point avoided like the plague by everyone) in order to discuss the set of all possible explanations (without introducing invalid constraints) involves the difference between what is known and what is believed to be known. Clearly, these two components cannot be separated from one another by any mechanism consistent with the explanation as they must both exactly obey the rules of the explanation (the explanation would be invalid if they didn't). On the other hand, from the abstract overview they, nonetheless, are constrained by violently different rules and that characteristic must be clearly comprehended as it has far reaching logical consequences.

 

At the risk of upsetting people who cannot wrap their minds around original concepts I introduce two more new terms: "knowable" and "unknowable" to label the two components above. The term "knowable" will refer to A, the thing which is to be explained; whereas "unknowable" will refer to those things the explanation presumes to exist which are not actually part of A. The first set is "knowable" in the sense that, being what is to be explained, it must be part of all possible reliable explanation of A whereas the second set is "unknowable" in the sense that reliable explanations may exist which do not require these components and thus they cannot be regarded as necessarily "knowable".

 

A little thought should convince anyone that the "knowable" things are set and are completely outside the theorist's control while the "unknowable" things are figments of his imagination and may be whatever he wants them to be so long as they facilitate his explanation. They are in fact, elements of the explanation and not actual elements of A. If proposing their existence makes the theorist's theory more reliable (or simplifies the rules of that theory) it behooves him to do so.

 

At this point I believe I have presented all the fundamental concepts one needs in order to lay out a very simple explanation capable of explaining absolutely anything. If I can get some evidence that anyone out there comprehends what I mean by these philosophically alien concepts which I have brought forth above, I will lay out the exact mechanical procedure for creating that "fundamental explanation".

 

Have fun -- Dick

First, if you have to take the trouble to read this, then you are failing in your attempt to do as I asked,

Why don't you try and explain yourself again, this time in a short concise post? Make a summary of your point.

Notice that was a question that you apparently missed.

 

Short, meaning not 5 paragraphs. How about not even 5 sentences. Can you make your position known as to what you are trying to prove in two or three well-thought, clear, defined by normal english and logic, sentences?

 

I've read Plato, Rousseau, Dewey, among others. None of them wrote in concise sentences, thus causing many headaches. I'll read them if I have to, but as this is a voluntary attempt at helping you, I don't read them if my head begins to ache.

 

Perhaps an example of this logic, everyday type of example, unless this isn't an every day type of logic.

 

Perhaps, if you ask nicely enough I'll attempt to dive into your attempt at an explanation above and figure out what it is that you are saying, A's B's C's and Ith's not withstanding.

 

Until then happy hunting for a person to discuss your topic, as this person awaits a better job by you to describe your ideas.

[Kriminal99]

Without going on and on about it the bottom line is philosophy has different standards than science does. While in the scientific community poor communication of complex ideas is overlooked and people are expected to go way out of their way to understand what you have to say, which they will be more inclined to do the more distinguished you are, in the philosophical community your ideas actually have to be refined to clearly communicate what you mean. And one of the first things you learn as you attempt to do this is alot of ideas you thought were really amazing really aren't so much once you see that they are based on unfounded generalizations or a bunch of unconnected metaphors and that that fact was the very reason noone knew what you were talking about.

[CraigD]

Without going on and on about it the bottom line is philosophy has different standards than science does….

Indeed, and in several areas, not just in clarity of communication.

 

At Kriminal notes, written Philosophy must be clear and understandable by its readers – it must be, in a very precise sense, popular. Even if the underlying concepts are novel and good, poor expression of them discredits a writer of Philosophy (or speaker, if one’s an “old school” Socratic type, or a less-old-school dialecticist). In Science writing, readers are inclined to forgive crudity of expression if the underlying concepts are attractive, something they can take and develop on their own.

 

Ultimately, however, modern Science seeks to reduce itself to mathematical formalism (not the same thing as Platonic formalism, but related by several analogies) a form of expression that is independent of the writer or reader. Practically, almost all Science, and most Math, falls short of this ideal, while philosophers and sociologists of Science frequently question its validity. Among scientists and mathematicians, however, the goodness of formalism is, in my experience, a nearly universal common core belief.

 

As is frequently pointed out in these forums, scientific writing is held in one important, perhaps defining area to a higher standard that philosophical writing: if must make falsifiable predictions. If it does not, its core readership is likely to deny it the status of “Science” at all, a reaction that has occurred toward even famous, widely known ideas such as the many worlds interpretation. Many people doubt even if an early work of it, Everet’s, should have even been accepted as a Physics PhD thesis.

 

Despite their sharing common historic roots, the philosophical and scientific traditions today have, I believe, inherently conflicting approaches, as illustrated by the following maxims:

• Philosophy: “Seldom affirm, never deny, always distinguish”
  
• Science: “Constantly strive to falsify hypothesese”
  

:hihi: I’m sure many of the readers of this thread are familiar with this joke:

A university experiencing financial straits has a meeting of its department heads – a physicist, a chemist, a mathematician, and a philosopher - to discuss trimming the university budget – is short, to fight for their departments’ lives.

 

First, the chemist says: “you should get rid of the Physics department, with all their expensive high-energy equipment and electric bills. My department needs little more than glassware, a few chemicals, and some Bunsen burners”

 

Next, the mathematician replies: “get rid of them both, but keep my department! All we need are paper, pencils, and erasers.”

 

Finally, the philosopher replies: “get rid of them all: my department doesn’t even need the erasers!”

 

Like many jokes, it contains a grain of truth, and speaks to the difference between Science and Philosophy as they are today :lol:

[cwes99_03]

What I have gathered from Dick's posts is either

a) he is talking about some instinctual response, where one has no conscious thought on his action, he simply reacts. This is well studied and known to occur in some animals, as they begin to breath immediately or swim immediately upon birth. However, he compares a squirrel jumping from one tree to another as this type of "logic". (see definition of logic on your favorite webcyclopedia)

:hihi: he is talking about making conscious decisions, without taking the time to put much if any thought into the subject. In this case we have the fight or flight scenario, where one makes a snap decision to either stay and fight, or flee from something that makes a sudden and extreme sound. However, in my post above (#48) you can read my opinions on this phenomena. I show that any decision is likely based upon a previous situation, even if one identical to the current situation isn't available, and a decision is made off of the available information and memory.

 

There is of course the knee jerk reaction that the body controls itself.

Say one grabs ahold of a flesh searing hot piece of metal. The spinal cord when it receives the signal from the hand that it has grabbed something hot, will send the immediate signal to release whatever it is that is hot. However, from my attempt at understanding Dick, this is not what he is talking about.

 

Anyone else find any other possible understandings of Dick's comments?

[Doctordick]

Without going on and on about it the bottom line is philosophy has different standards than science does.

Then you would hold that philosophy should not be approached in a scientific manner? :) That is, philosophy is not and should not be considered a scientific endeavorer. If that is truly the case then I think I should put you with "cwes" on my ignore list.

Indeed, and in several areas, not just in clarity of communication.

It is hard for me to tell if you are being serious or humorous.

– it must be, in a very precise sense, popular. Even if the underlying concepts are novel and good, poor expression of them discredits a writer of Philosophy (or speaker, if one’s an “old school” Socratic type, or a less-old-school dialecticist). In Science writing, readers are inclined to forgive crudity of expression if the underlying concepts are attractive, something they can take and develop on their own.

That sounds like you are saying "philosophy is a dead science"? Or am I reading something in there you didn't intend. :hihi:

Among scientists and mathematicians, however, the goodness of formalism is, in my experience, a nearly universal common core belief.

Yeah, I would go with that; but what's your opinion of "the goodness of formalism"?

As is frequently pointed out in these forums, scientific writing is held in one important, perhaps defining area to a higher standard that philosophical writing: it must make falsifiable predictions. If it does not, its core readership is likely to deny it the status of “Science” at all, a reaction that has occurred toward even famous, widely known ideas such as the many worlds interpretation. Many people doubt even if an early work of it, Everet’s, should have even been accepted as a Physics PhD thesis.

It sounds here that you are supporting the idea that scientists are as bad as philosophers in regarding philosophy as not a science. I would tend to agree with you emphatically. I note that Popper actually refers to metaphysics as a pseudoscience so I guess no one wants to look at the issues "scientifically". That certainly puts me in a rare atmosphere here doesn't it.

Despite their sharing common historic roots, the philosophical and scientific traditions today have, I believe, inherently conflicting approaches, as illustrated by the following maxims:

• Philosophy: “Seldom affirm, never deny, always distinguish”
  
• Science: “Constantly strive to falsify hypothesese”
  

:lol: I’m sure many of the readers of this thread are familiar with this joke:

A university experiencing financial straits has a meeting of its department heads – a physicist, a chemist, a mathematician, and a philosopher - to discuss trimming the university budget – is short, to fight for their departments’ lives.

 

First, the chemist says: “you should get rid of the Physics department, with all their expensive high-energy equipment and electric bills. My department needs little more than glassware, a few chemicals, and some Bunsen burners”

 

Next, the mathematician replies: “get rid of them both, but keep my department! All we need are paper, pencils, and erasers.”

 

Finally, the philosopher replies: “get rid of them all: my department doesn’t even need the erasers!”

 

Like many jokes, it contains a grain of truth, and speaks to the difference between Science and Philosophy as they are today :)

Yes, I think I first heard that one back in the sixties.

 

Seriously, Mr CraigD, you must be joking. To paraphrase the title of a fun book. :P

 

In post 34 on page 4 of this thread I tried to clear up the issue of what concerned me as a graduate student. The central issue of my desire to separate of mental performance into two categories was to provide a convenient way of handling induction.

Practically, almost all Science, and most Math, falls short of this ideal, while philosophers and sociologists of Science frequently question its validity.

Now I could be wrong here but it seems to me that it is the impossibility of logically defending induction which is the central issue of the controversy you are talking about right here. This is exactly the problem I have attacked "in a scientific manner" which no one will seriously consider even so far as providing me with a little decent criticism.

 

It is commonly held that there are two very different categories of logic: deduction and induction. In reality, induction is not really logic; it is actually the logical deductions which may be made from the assumption that what has happened in the past will happen again. Now all deduction is based on axioms so why would they want to set this off as a separate category an not just another possible axiom? The answer is very simple but difficult to live with so they don't like to bring it to our attention. The fact is that the assumption "what has happened in the past will happen again" is very difficult to accept as an axiom applicable to our experiences. Actually, almost all errors in our scientific explanations of our experiences can be traced to exactly that very assumption.

 

I say, suppose we simply drop induction as valid logic. What can one say about our experiences then? Everyone, and I mean everyone to the last living soul, refuses to even consider such a thing. They won't even try to come up with possibilities. The adamant refusal to look is absolutely all pervasive. The answer is invariably one of the following: if you drop induction, all you are left with is infinite regression; if all you accept is what you can prove, you're a solipsist and can defend nothing, or, the very best of all, "you're an idiot if you think anything lies down that path". (Right up there with "the earth is flat", "man can't fly" and "heavy things fall faster".)

 

The only reason what I discovered wasn't discovered centuries ago is because everyone adamantly refuses to look down that rabbit hole. No one has taken the trouble to look at the true problem (the problem becomes one of constructing a rational model of a totally unknown universe given nothing but a totally undefined stream of data which has been transcribed by a totally undefined process) because they regard the problem as obviously insolvable. The position of the entire scientific community is that no one but a complete idiot (me???) would look there. :lol:

 

This position is held by everyone in spite of the fact that, in their own mental model of the universe, the problem is solved daily by millions of children (they begin as a single cell with no mental concepts at all and, within a few short years they have developed complex ideas and theories beyond reckoning). Think about it. I can prove that it is the freedom to define the data transcription which allows an analytical solution to the problem. One thing it utterly destroys is the "many worlds" interpretation of quantum mechanics; there is but one possibility yet, at the same time, it opens up fields of examination which will never be seen so long as we continue our "flat earth" policy with regard to modern science.

 

By the way, this thread and the new one I just started are both an attempt to get a little interest into the mechanism I have discovered for getting around the problem of proving induction.

 

Have fun -- Dick

 

"The simplest and most necessary truths are the very last to be believed."

by Anonymous -- (He wrote a lot of stuff.)

[cwes99_03]

The senses can't be understood? How do you see the screen in front of you? How do microphones, photoreceptors, lenses, speakers, litmus papers work?

they begin as a single cell with no mental concepts at all and, within a few short years they have developed complex ideas and theories beyond reckoning

Beyond reckoning? I believe in an earlier post

I'm sorry, but I believe you yourself did not fully understand my post so I will re-explain.

 

1) our first logical decisions are made at a very young age (when I can't say, and is different for every person)

2) these logic decisions are made based upon what we are taught to be logical (i.e. we learn from others' examples)

3) at some point we begin to make logical decisions based upon our own experiences (though we still include the experiences learned earlier in life as they apply) In this case, I may say that someone else failed at doing this, but having examined their attempt I can logically find a few ways to try it differently and succeed based upon other logical events I have examined in my life.

4) All of these describe a logical process of evaluation of a problem. 1) identify the problem 2) compare the problem to a knowledge-base, to discover similar situations 3) if identical to a previous situation, make decision based upon success failure of previous situation 4) if not make gut logical decision on whether it is similar enough in nature to a previous situation 5) if not, gather more information and test again, 6) once the knowledge base has been exhausted, it may be possible to string together several similar situations to form a logical conclusion

5) If there exists no other similar or identical situation then we have a completely new phenomena. (how many times have you ever encountered a completely new phenomena?)

yes that's it, that i explained how they were able to form logial thoughts through observation of others. But if we can't observe because our senses aren't understood, then well i guess you are right.

[Kriminal99]

The differences I was referring to have to do with how refined your ideas are and how well they are communicated. I can agree with CraigD that ONE reason for this is that scientists can be expected to put forth the effort to sort out a poorly communicated argument and work with it on their own.

 

However I would like to make the point once again that often times when you are refining an argument, you find that the reason you could not easily communicate the argument to someone other than yourself is because you have made some generalization that someone else's experience might not drive them to make. You may not even realize that you have done it. Now in Philosophy it is of course possible to do the same thing, and then have another philosopher pick up your ideas and make the same unfounded generalization and agree with you. But the more of these there are in what you have to say, the less people will understand and agree with what you have to say even if they aren't able to point out that you have made an unfounded generalization. Furthermore, many philosophers believe that if your arguments lacks any such generalizations, you could (perhaps after a LOT of work) reduce your argument to such a simple step by step deduction that anyone would have a hard time rejecting it. A sort of logical formalization (That mathematics is perhaps a subset of)

 

In Science it is totally different... If you don't understand a theory, its assumed that YOU are the one who is somehow in the wrong regarding something you believe. This means that unfounded generalizations are likely to be accepted by many more people than they would in the philosophical arena. The same way religions brainwash people into believing their ideas (through social pressures applied by adults who are already members), the scientific community subverts people into accepting ideas using our education system. A good question is how well would those ideas stand without these social pressures, considering the logical value of most religious beliefs and how well these tactics work in making people believe in them?

 

In this sense I believe Philosophical standards are higher than those of the scientific community. Not that everything that is written is better, but that which is written and which many people become interested in voluntarily is better.

 

Also I would like to point out a few more things. Any legitimate non-specific standards that exist in science also exist in philosophy by the same means as mentioned above. In fact the probably exist in more general form in philosophy. However some standards in science seem specific to the way science works and do not have any logical value as standards in philosophy.

 

For example how is "falsifiable" necessarily a useful concept in philosophy? In science it is useful because science has economic implications, and noone wants to waste money testing something when it doesn't even allow you to make clear progress by allowing you to dispose of a theory. This reasoning may be useful in other situations too where you have limited time and resources to figure soemthing out. But the concept has no use in philosophy. There is no reason not to explore a belief set which perhaps we cannot immediately come up with a way to disprove. In fact, it may be absolutely neccessary to pursue a way of thinking a great distance before any such opportunity to disprove it could present itself. If no such opportunity is immediately evident, a scientist would fail to pursue such a belief set while a philosopher may follow it and work it out to a point where it could be disproven. A philosopher could solicit help to do this, while a scientist could not.

[Doctordick]

Sorrry about the delay but I felt I needed to clarify my thoughts before responding. I am afraid I just don't believe you are telling the truth. I think the issue here is much simpler than what you present. Serious scientific inquire requires intellectual discipline which is something most people are simply not interested in. The physical sciences can be divided into serious science and popular science and there is actually little dialog between the two (only somewhat vague ideas of what is going on are actually communicated to the general public). It is not the fact that no serious disciplined scientific inquire can be done in philosophy but rather that, to date, serious disciplined work has failed to provide any worthwhile results and thus there is little difference between the serious work and the vague popular ideas of what that work has accomplished. :hihi:

 

As a consequence, in philosophy one can get away with vague undisciplined work which would be unacceptable in any disciplined field. That was the reason I started this thread, "Defining the nature of rational discussion!" The central issue of any "rational" discussion is a willingness to see what causes absolute validity of some assertions to be undefendable. I was trying to introduce the idea that a little intellectual discipline could be used on this forum or at least find out from whom I could expect such discipline: people willing to admit the problems with inductive conclusions. It appears that I find myself between a rock and a hard place so to speak. Serious thinkers (in either "science" or "philosophy") consider getting around the difficulty with induction to be impossible (an inductive conclusion itself by the way) so they have utterly no interest in examining my work ("I could not possibly have done what I claim and am obviously an idiot for suggesting such a thing is possible") and "popularist" philosophy enthusiasts have utterly no interest in intellectual discipline (all they want to do is stir around in the vague and poorly defined concepts of popular philosophy and impress themselves with their reasoning power). One very big problem I have is that people sufficiently rational to understand the difficulty do not post as they know they have nothing to say; I personally am not bothered by that but I would like to know if anyone out there is interested. If you are let me know as I have some very serious things to relate. :umno:

 

In Science it is totally different... If you don't understand a theory

I am not putting forward a theory; I am looking at the process of conceiving theories and the the rational constraints which should be placed on those conceptions. In particular, what can one say if one avoids yielding validity to induction. And the only reaction I have received so far is "I don't want to look!"; essentially the monkey issue, "Say no Evil, Hear no Evil and See no Evil". Ok, if you don't want to look, go away. If you do want to look, then either take the time to look at my scheme or give me a better scheme: i.e., tell me how you would handle the idea of dropping induction as a component of your beliefs. :shrug:

 

Don't talk to me about communication when you won't even consider the subject I want to talk about. :hihi:

 

Have fun -- Dick

 

Knowledge is Power

and the most common abuse of that power is to use it to hide stupidity

[questor]

Dr., i, too, would welcome rational discussion on many subjects. i have no projects of importance that i am working on such as you seem to have but there are multitudes of unanswered questions that pique one's interest. are you trying to test us to see if we are worthy of discussing your important work with you ? or perhaps trying to see if some of us may provide ideas which may send your mind into new paths? to me there is polite discussion, which may be cocktail chatter. entertaining, but of no weight or import. rational discussion which is done by rational people, sane and sensible. and logical discussion which follows the rules of logic. logic is bounded by one's knowledge of truth and exists in the confines of todays capabilities to determine truth. we are not now equipped to understand thought itself. we do not know how thought originates, or why it originates. to me your ''squirrel thought'' is base on intuition (genetic) and experience.

it seems to exist at a subconscious level. i think contemplative thought would be more likely to lead to creativity, the other leads to the quick muscle response.

why don't you tell us of the work you refer to that has not been published so we can rationally discuss it . i think you will meet some fine intellects on this site.

[Doctordick]

Dr., i, too, would welcome rational discussion on many subjects.

I am interested in a lot and believe it is thought about many different subjects which give one a coherent understanding about the issue of understanding. :wave:

i have no projects of importance that i am working on such as you seem to have but there are multitudes of unanswered questions that pique one's interest.

The "project of importance" that I am trying to communicate is that there is a central thread to all unanswered questions which must be understood before one can ever produce valid answers to any question and I can find no one interested in even thinking about the issue. :gift:

are you trying to test us to see if we are worthy of discussing your important work with you ?

No, I am trying to point out a central subtly of objective scientific work. If I can't find anyone capable of comprehending that issue, I am wasting my time trying to explain a way around a problem they have no idea exists. :umno:

or perhaps trying to see if some of us may provide ideas which may send your mind into new paths?

No, my mind has already been down the most fruitful path which exists. I would just like to find someone interested in knowing what lies down that path. :note:

to me there is polite discussion, which may be cocktail chatter. entertaining, but of no weight or import. rational discussion which is done by rational people, sane and sensible. and logical discussion which follows the rules of logic. logic is bounded by one's knowledge of truth and exists in the confines of todays capabilities to determine truth.

Idle chatter signifying nothing. :eek:

we are not now equipped to understand thought itself. we do not know how thought originates, or why it originates. to me your ''squirrel thought'' is base on intuition (genetic) and experience.

So what? Is no one capable of comprehending that there might be a way around the difficulty or don't they comprehend that there is a difficulty here? :wave:

why don't you tell us of the work you refer to that has not been published so we can rationally discuss it.

I do, over and over again, each time trying to put it into simpler terms so I might figure out what aspect of what I am saying it is that everyone finds impossible to understand.

 

Do they not comprehend that inductive conclusions are not valid? Or do they not comprehend what conclusions they use which are based on induction? Or maybe they don't comprehend that the meanings of any language is itself a inductive conclusion? What part of "invalid" (possibly "not true") are they missing. There is practically nothing on these forums which can be logically defended! The whole crowd of you seems to be more interested in batting useless information back and forth than with the first thought regarding the validity of any of it. If you stop and think about it for a moment, it should be eminently clear to everyone that most every thing they think is based on induction. My point in introducing "squirrel" conclusions was to implement a mental method of classifying inductive results as separate from deductive results without avoiding the necessity of those inductive results (seeing the circumstance as one unavoidable whole).

What I was trying to communicate is the idea that this is a fact which should be kept in mind when one goes about constructing an explanation. :star:

 

If anyone is interested in a serious discussion of how what we know and what we assume bears on explaining the universe, let me know.

No one expressed any interest; so I went on: :)

I counter their position with the assertion that "truth" by definition is the only absolute truth available to us. The issue of truth by definition rests on two very straight forward points: (1.) we either agree on our definitions or communication is impossible and (2.) only the existence of internal contradictions can invalidate a definition. ... So it is my position that the question, Exactly what can be deduced from first principals? is a question which can only be answered after establishing an exact definition of an explanation. (Another of those concepts they apparently know when they see it and presume everyone else does too). Again, I need to define it if I want to know what I am talking about. ... Thus I come to define "An explanation", from the abstract perspective, to be a method of obtaining expectations from given known information. If you have any arguments with that definition, it seems to me that you need to show me either a method of obtaining those expectations which can not be conceived to be an explanation or an explanation which provides no method of obtaining expectations. If you cannot show one of those circumstance, than you should agree that it is a usable definition of an explanation consistent with the common meaning of the term.

 

Looking to hear your complaints.

No objections, no complaints. In fact, no reaction at all. Either no one read it or no one paid any attention to any aspect of what I said. Why is that? Because I am setting up a tautology (and they know tautologies are useless :) ) or is it that they don't understand the value of absolute truth? So, I again went forward with no sign of interest of any kind. B)

That's the basic problem in trying to have a rational conversation: i.e., when it comes to logical analysis, people simply fail to keep a sufficient breadth of relevant information in mind and instead, rely on their intuition to keep them safe. They essentially lose sight of what they can defend and what they cannot defend.

Just a comment concerning the apparent deficit in attention span on this thread.

The issue is actually quite simple, all squirrel decisions must be held as suspect. What is important is that one have a logically consistent method of handling that all pervading aspect of rational thought. :umno:

Just another repeat of what I have already said!

The starting point is a careful definition of exactly where one wants to go. One needs to comprehend that the desire to understand something is fulfilled by the ability to explain it. This requires an exact completely general abstract definition of an explanation.

More repetition! I have no idea why no one picks up on what I say. So I went ahead and gave my "general abstract definition of an explanation". (Every thing I am giving are threads in a tautology.)

To summarize: A is what is to be explained, C is what is known, B is a change in what is known, label-i is a reference to the ith element of B (if the number of elements in B is finite they may be ordered as part of the explanation) and P(B) is a function which yields one's expectations for a specific B if the explanation is to be taken to be valid. Note that I am proposing no "truth" here. What I am proposing is a mechanism for referring to the significant aspects of "an explanation" so that we can talk about that explanation without knowing what it is (to us it is an unknown; that is the central issue of "working in the abstract").

 

I hope you find what I have said at least acceptable as a defined basis for an abstract discussion. If not, please give me a careful description of issues you feel uncomfortable with.

And again, no reaction at all. No complaints, no acceptance, no indication that anything I wrote had been read. Perhaps abstract reasoning itself is just too foreign to be followed by anyone here. None the less, I went ahead and gave the next step. :lol:

Please note that I am not denying the reliability of modern physics, I am merely pointing out that there are serious aspects of the theory which are arrived at inductively and cannot be considered to be absolutely valid. ;)

 

It is to handle the above circumstance that I introduce a new concept. When a theory is created, the theory itself may require the introduction of elements which are not actual members of the set A. Though these elements are not true elements of A they must none the less obey all the rules the theory requires elements of A to obey (if they don't obey those rules, the theory is clearly unreliable and should be discarded forthwith). On the other hand, when it comes to creating theories, there are very serious differences between the two types of elements. When one creates a theory, that theory must explain elements of A which appear in C and no leeway exists as to the need of that part of the explanation. With regard to these other elements (the ones implied by the theory) the creator of the theory has the freedom to propose or not propose their existence. If proposing their existence makes his theory more reliable (or simplifies the rules of that theory) it behooves him to do so.

 

The point of the above paragraph is to make it clear that, in examining the abstract nature of an explanation, one needs to keep in mind the possibility of two very different components of what is presumed to be known. In order to make these two components easy to refer to, I will call those elements which are actually part of A "knowable data" in the sense that they must exist in every possible reliable theory of A. I will call those elements which are created by the theory "unknowable data" in the sense that it is possible that there exists a reliable theory which does not require them. Notice that I am requiring the rules of any reliable theory to apply as well to that "unknowable data" as to the "knowable data" so that no experimental mechanism (consistent with that reliable theory) can differentiate between them. This difference exists only in the abstract representation of C in that we are free to change one but not the other in our abstract analysis of all possible theories. :umno:

 

I know that the import of "unknowable data" is hard to comprehend and I hope you all take the time to consider it carefully as it has some profound logical consequences. :shrug:

And, once more, utterly no reaction. So I stopped there being no reason to go on since everything I am saying is apparently falling on dead ears.

 

Then you come along and say, "why don't you tell us of the work you refer to that has not been published so we can rationally discuss it" and I am utterly dumbfounded.

i think you will meet some fine intellects on this site.

I wish some of them would talk to me. :lol:

 

Have fun -- Dick

 

Knowledge is Power

and the most common abuse of that power is to use it to hide stupidity

[Turtle]

___Crud! Just lost a 10 minute reply Doc!

___I purposefully use inductive methods for my investigations & I think this is opposite of most people. I refer you to the Katabatak explanation I have ongoing wherin I start with counting rocks & build logical constructs from there that have utility in explaining certain number relationships. What is useless to one may have essential qualities for another.

___I admit I don't recognize the 'problem' you propose, but I also realize it might go beyond my understanding. I 'see' a lot of things others don't & I explain them the best I can without much concern for whether anyone understands them as I do.

___Without understanding your explanation, how do you suggest I modify what I 'do' to come in line with it?

___I continue to read what you say in the hopes of finding some clarity. Maybe some graphs or diagrams or something to illustrate your work besides just words?

Keepin it Fun,

Turtle

[Doctordick]

___Crud! Just lost a 10 minute reply Doc!

Don't feel bad, it has happened to me and I suspect everyone has done it on occation. :(

___I purposefully use inductive methods ...

Without induction, we would clearly be lost as all knowledge of anything begins with inductively acquired axioms (something Kriminal99 has already pointed out, over and over again). And I have read quite a little of your "Katabatak explanation". :)

What is useless to one may have essential qualities for another.

Yes, almost all advances in science arise from noticing something that others have found worthless. ;)

___I admit I don't recognize the 'problem' you propose, but I also realize it might go beyond my understanding.

No, I don't think that is really true. I have noticed over the years that people put "knowing an answer" above all other considerations. They will accept a ridiculous answer before they will admit they don't know. It seems that saying "I don't know" is single most difficult thing for a human being to say. This makes the real difficulty the fact that people will never recognize a problem they don't believe can be solved. If it can't be solved, it can't possibly be important! :eek:

___Without understanding your explanation, how do you suggest I modify what I 'do' to come in line with it?

I am suggesting no modification whatsoever. All I am saying is that you should make an attempt to understand what I am saying as the consequences are quite all encompassing. It is a simple question of understanding something which will never be reached by induction. If you ever do see it, believe me, you will be as astonished by it as I was when I first discovered it. :eek:

___I continue to read what you say in the hopes of finding some clarity.

Do you really think that you are looking for "clarity" in what I am saying or is it rather the hope of comprehending where the path leads before you head down it? I can almost guarantee you that you will never comprehend where this reasoning goes until we get there. The route is a complex tautological path through a dense jungle of utterly unknown concepts. Along that path, there is nothing reasonable which is visible in any direction and the only hope of not losing your way is to carefully assure yourself that, meaningless as each step may be, every one of those steps is on solid ground. It is only on the other side of that jungle that everything becomes manifest. :eek:

Maybe some graphs or diagrams or something to illustrate your work besides just words?

What I am doing is the very essence of abstract thought (I am working with the "unknown" itself and the "unknown" cannot be graphed, diagrammed, or illustrated; not if it is truly unknown). What I am trying to present is a long complex tautological argument. The argument has no content outside the definitions themselves (commonly referred to as analytical truths). The definitions I use are no more than references to issues important to that tautological path. :eek:

 

The first definition which must be understood is the abstract definition of what we are looking for: the definition of an explanation. I presented my abstract definition near the end of message #9 on page #1 of this thread. :(

So it is my position that the question, Exactly what can be deduced from first principals? is a question which can only be answered after establishing an exact definition of an explanation. (Another of those concepts they apparently know when they see it and presume everyone else does too). Again, I need to define it if I want to know what I am talking about.

 

I will begin by pointing out that all "explanations" require something which is to be explained. Whatever it is that is to be explained, it can be thought of as information. It thus follows that "explanation" is something which is done to (or for) information. The question then is, if we are to define "an explanation" in general, we must lay down exactly what an explanation does to (or for) information? First, I think it is pretty clear that one cannot "explain" anything they do not understand.

 

It seems to me that if all the information is known, then any questions about the information can be answered (in fact, that circumstance could be regarded as the definition of "knowing"). On the other hand, if the information is understood, then questions about the information can be answered given only limited or incomplete knowledge of the underlying information: i.e., limited subsets of the information. What I am saying is that understanding implies it is possible to predict expectations for information not known. The explanation itself constitutes a method which provides one with those rational expectations for unknown information consistent with what is known.

 

Thus I come to define "An explanation", from the abstract perspective, to be a method of obtaining expectations from given known information. If you have any arguments with that definition, it seems to me that you need to show me either a method of obtaining those expectations which can not be conceived to be an explanation or an explanation which provides no method of obtaining expectations. If you cannot show one of those circumstance, than you should agree that it is a usable definition of an explanation consistent with the common meaning of the term.

There was no response whatsoever to that proposition (everybody deflected the interest in the thread to other issues); so, some 29 messages later, I reasserted my opening position (see message #38 on page #4 of this thread) and again generated not a whit of interest (at least no response). Then, in the apparently futile hope that "Qfwfq" had some understanding of my definition of an explanation and had just omitted clarifying that to me, I went ahead and specified the abstract representation I was going to use for the components of an explanation (that would be message #40, the last message on page #4 of this thread). Again, the only response I got was further deflection of of interest. So, one last time I tried to add another sign post on that path I was trying to point out (see the second half of message #47 on page #5). Again, not receiving a whit of comprehension. At this point, I wish I had that ten minute reply you lost as you seem to be showing some interest in what I am talking about. :evil:

 

What I would appreciate is some reaction which would let me know that you either find that my definition of an explanation is reasonable or there is some reason you find it to be an unacceptable starting point. Perhaps if we got that issue clarified, we could discuss my abstract mechanism for working with that definition. At least if we got that far, we would be heading in the right direction.

 

I would really like to hear from you again as you strike me as a very rational person.

 

Have fun -- Dick

 

"The simplest and most necessary truths are the very last to be believed."

by Anonymous -- (He wrote a lot of stuff.)

[Turtle]

What I would appreciate is some reaction which would let me know that you either find that my definition of an explanation is reasonable or there is some reason you find it to be an unacceptable starting point. Perhaps if we got that issue clarified, we could discuss my abstract mechanism for working with that definition. At least if we got that far, we would be heading in the right direction.

 

I would really like to hear from you again as you strike me as a very rational person.

 

Have fun -- Dick

 

"The simplest and most necessary truths are the very last to be believed."

by Anonymous -- (He wrote a lot of stuff.)

 

Ok, I think some of this is sinking in. See if I got it; Knowlege is the stuff one knows, explaining is what you do with the stuff, & if you explain correctly you gain knowledge you previously did not have. Also one can get knowledge by other means than an explanation? :evil:

[Doctordick]

Ok, I think some of this is sinking in.

I don't know if you are joking or what! You are apparently missing the point that I am constructing a tautology on an analytical proposition expressed by my definition of "an explanation". :eek:

See if I got it; Knowlege is the stuff one knows,

I never defined "knowledge". I did presume the existence of something I called "information" but I intentionally left the issue of what that was open and undefined. I did no more than name it C. I also provided a mechanism for making it finite and yet changeable by naming the change B. And finally, I named whatever it is that goes to make up this "information", "elements of A.

explaining is what you do with the stuff,

No, explaining is not "what you do with the stuff"! I defined "an explanation" to be a method of obtaining expectations from given known information. That would be a mechanism for answering questions about your "expectations" concerning the information not yet known.

if you explain correctly you gain knowledge you previously did not have.

First, I never defined the word "correctly" (though I did comment that an explanation which would not have accurately predicted what is known must be rejected out of hand) and no knowledge is gained by achieving an explanation; the only purpose of an explanation is clarify your expectations. Your ability to do this is the only way to defend the idea that you do actually "understand" something (an otherwise rather meaningless statement). How that understanding comes about, is of no interest to me or my tautology.

Also one can get knowledge by other means than an explanation? :eek:

As I said, how knowledge (or that thing I named C, "information") is acquired is outside my interest. I am interested in one and only one thing: that would be the consequence of defining "an explanation". The consequence of "knowing" what we are trying to do as opposed to doing something without "knowing" what we are trying to do. What serious constraints can we logically put on "an explanation". :evil:

 

The only reason I made the statement, "It seems to me that if all the information is known, then any questions about the information can be answered (in fact, that circumstance could be regarded as the definition of 'knowing')", was to dismiss the idea that "knowing the information" could be conceived to be "an explanation". You never did comment as to the acceptability of my definition and I am still looking for some reaction which would let me know that you find that definition reasonable.

 

Have fun -- Dick