Re: Hard Sci-fi?

On 11 Maj, 10:33, Niels <n...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sunday 11 May 2008 03:51, Tue Sorensen wrote:

[Cylon computer intrusion]>> > The idea is sound,
even if the execution in the show may not be flawless.

The idea is completely wrong.

Absolutely wrong, while Niels is absolutely right. How many times is
it now that I've called you an absolutist? Either you desire absolute
truths, a la Plato, which is what in philosophy is called absolute
idealism and is the anti-thesis to science, or you're using absolutism
as a defense mechanism in discussions to throw irrational and unargued
suspicion on the other guy's views. Either is reprehensive.

Bla bla bla! We're talking about computers and intrusions, don't try to pull
it down with your nonsens philosophy.

You cannot argue properly if you don't understand basic positions.

New things can usually only be understood by, and explained to, those
who are already quite close to understanding them. Fact. That's why
everything develops so slowly. People need time to absorb new ideas.
Once people are exposed often and thoroughly to new ideas, they will
start accepting them. I, however, am one of the first to expose you to
these ideas, and hence the chance that you will accept them anytime
soon is very slight indeed. That will change in time.

Or you could simply show some actual results.

Wait for 'em!

I'm going to be dismissive of your ideas until you present numerical
results. But you knew that.

I'm never going to present numerical results. And your mechanics and
math are never going to be more than a subset of science. Science is
about reality, not merely numbers. Or do you agree with that religious
fanatic who said that since we can never fully know what reality is
anyway, the entire enterprise of probing it should be abandoned?
Science is an increasingly accurate map of reality, but for numbers to
be useful, the data require context and conceptual integration:
understanding. You're reckoning without your host; ignoring the human
presence. Both reality and consciousness are more than pure data. All
knowledge is dependent on man-made structure, interpretation and
behavioral reactions. In short, attitudes and assumptions. Ultimately,
science is also about discovering what our own nature is, and what
sort of behavior and society we would be best served to live with. And
all the variables are entirely scientific; neuro-chemicals in
quantifiable amounts, etc. But the cumulative results of scientific
knowledge leads to guide-lines for morals and civilization and outline
the further directions into which our studies should go. This has
always been part of science. Science is not clinical and
dispassionate; scientific knowledge creates the desire for more
knowledge, and historically tends to breed optimism about the future -
that's why many science geeks are also science fiction fans. A
scientifically more advanced future is a cool and exciting and
wondrous place. Wonder. When *that* is scientifically explained, the
feeling will explode in people's minds, and make a *hell* of a
positive difference. Count on it. And it'll happen in our life-time.
Count on that, too.

I may well be said to be a science fundamentalist. Science should
encompass everything, for everything has scientific explanations and,
by scientific definition, nothing supernatural can exist, since
everything is part of nature. *With a properly scientific world view*
(which people don't have yet), even subjective experience is
scientific. The laws that govern minds and cultures will also one day
be described scientifically, and hence everything *will* be science.
I'm just compelled to enjoy this delicious state of affairs in
advance. And in so doing helping to bring it about.

I'm not interested in philosophy. Show me some practical results of
philosophy, then I'll listen. Something useful and productive.

Science should have taught you that science itself began as philosophy
(well, after it had been originally introduced as religion), and that
the nature of science is not yet clear, which means that the
philosophy of science still has a few tricks to contribute to the
question.

The validity of a scientific claim lies in its correlation with
measurements. No further philosophical tricks are needed.

Repeating your misconceptions only compound them.

However, at least I have some new and original ideas,
unlike *some* people...

I can make up any number of new and original ideas. So what?

If you don't see the value of well-founded progressive ideas, then...

Moving the goalposts I see.

In no way. Simply saying that there's a difference between random
ideas and promising ideas, but you apparently don't see that
difference.

First you were talking about "new and original ideas", and when I challenged
that, you suddenly changed it to "well-founded progressive ideas". That's
called Moving the goalposts, and is considered a faux pas in discussions.

You indicated that the ideas you would make up were as random as you
erroneously perceive mine to be. I indicated that you are not
qualified to tell the difference between random ideas and good ideas.
If you were, you would *have* ideas of your own.

In Ancient Greece many
philosophers thought that the logic of their own minds were superior
to the causal relationships they could observe in nature. Hence they
considered many "logical" conclusions to be gospel without testing
them, or without acknowledging that their subjective logic should be
subject to the objective relationships seen in nature. Sounds
familiar?

Yes, but obviously they got their conclusions from observing nature.

By no means always! But you might argue that they probably got their
original *form of logic* from observing nature. They just didn't
attribute enough importance to nature, believing that "pure logic" was
superior to nature's.

Aristotle thought that for something to be moving, there had to be
something pushing it. Which seems very correct when you're pushing things
around on the ground. There's nothing wrong with the logic, the experiments
are just too simple. So yes, they were a little too fond of their own
conclusions and weren't focusing enough on experimental verification.
Sounds familiar?

:-) Like them, I do not have the tools to test my conclusions (but
some experimental scientists might). So for a while my ideas will have
to stand as philosophy, until either I or others get around to
verifying them.

Only back then, they had the excuse of not having
established a scientific community who recognized nature's objectivity
yet...

You know: things that actually matter.

Unfortunately I doubt I can trust you to be able to identify things
that actually matter.

Fortunately I'm not the judge of that.

I agree: that *is* fortunate.

You need to accept as scientific an abstract form of "philosophical"
thinking which paves the way for new theories, just as theories pave
the way for new experiments. First you have a foundational paradigm.
Then you have a theory. Then you have an experiment. You need to
realize that the paradigm is part of science as well. And that, just
as modes of experimenting and theorizing change, so do paradigms, over
long periods of time. And the way we make theories and do experiments
is dependent on the prevailing paradigm. And the prevailing paradigm
pretty much corresponds to the state of the scientific community.

Ok, so what procedural changes do you suggest?

What I suggest pretty much forms the substance of what I've been
trying to explain to you a dozen times. Qualified criticial thinking,
based on syntheses of several different areas of knowledge. That we
rethink a number of basic assumptions (I have told you often which
ones); that we learn in detail what the questions are before believing
we have the answers, etc. Showing more interest in the deeper nature
of science.

All this looks a lot more like philosophy than science. When I asked for
procedural changes, I actually wanted to know about procedural changes. You
know, how should we do experiments differently, how should statistical
analysis change and so on.

Theory comes before procedure. Procedure is dependent on theory and
initially theoretical method. You should ask for theoretical changes,
and those are exactly what we've been discussing for a long time, and
you have rejected them. You keep asking the same questions, I keep
giving the same answers, and then it just starts over. We're caught in
a time loop!!!!!!

I'm not the one who has a grand, world changing set of ideas that nobody
understands.

We certainly agree there.

- Tue
.