Re: Here's a possibility, but its a tall order; Harshman "got science,"hecandoit

Glenn wrote:

> "John Harshman" <jharshman.diespamdie@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:ww9Ne.3127$Z87.1079@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>>Glenn wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"John Harshman" <jharshman.diespamdie@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>>news:o28Ne.921$3F6.338@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>
>>>
>>>>Glenn wrote:
>>>
>>>snip
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>The bowling ball will hit you on the head regardless of what you
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>think gravity is.
>>>>
>>>>Yes, and you love that thought, don't you? But it has nothing to do with
>>>>whether our observation of the bowling ball is an inference or not. I
>>>>think you have some connection in your head between "inference" and
>>>>"untrue" or "unreliable" that just isn't there. Inference can be a
>>>>powerful tool that, given the proper data, can get you as close to truth
>>>>as can be got. As with the bowling ball.
>>>
>>>
>>>LOL! Our observation is not of the bowling ball at all. And it has
>
> nothing
>
>>>to do with bowling. No reasoning is involved in experiencing gravity.
>>
>>Depends on what you mean by experiencing. I admit that you can fall
>>without making an inference. But you can't know you are falling without
>>making an inference, nor can you know that anything else if falling.
>
>
> John. We observe things fall. It happens every time. We call it gravity. The
> word itself is irrelevant. It requires no inference, it is a fact, observed
> as long as we have been around. Animals even observe gravity.

Observing an object falling is one thing. Deriving from a number of such
observations the general principle that "objects fall" is quite another
thing. I'm happy to know that you can read the minds of animals. Will
you be on TV soon?

>>>Gravity is a fact, not the reasoning for why or how.
>>
>>Since I say that facts are inferences too, I agree that gravity is a
>>fact. Why or how might be a fact too, depending on just what you're
>>talking about there.
>
> We're talking about gravity here, it appears. But as to theory becoming
> fact, we will never really know, until we know all things.

Really? We can't know anything until we know everything?

>>>And the red herring
>>>inference to what I have "in my head" is typical of your style, John. It
>>>really is. I've not argued that inference is "untrue" or "unreliable".
>
> But
>
>>>you hit the nail on the head with your conditional: "given the *proper*
>>>data". No one can say for certain that you have the "proper" data to
>
> make
>
>>>any assumption; reasoning is not infallible, nor considered "fact"
>
> except by
>
>>>gullible or naive fools.
>>
>>Actually, I would claim that we can say for certain (or near enough as
>>makes no difference) that we do have the proper data in many cases.
>>"Gravity exists", meaning "things fall when in proximity to very big
>>objects" is one of those cases.
>
> I don't think that's an observation. My house is a big thing, and I don't
> fall toward it. And you can't tell me for "a fact" that there is no matter
> in the universe or beyond that would not behave the way we think it does.

Then I am at a loss to know what you mean by "gravity is a fact". (And
of course you do fall toward your house, just too slowly for you to
notice. If you and your house were the only objects for a long way
around, you would eventually notice. But I digress.)

>>It's been tested so many times that it
>>seems a pretty safe conclusion. A fact, in fact.
>
> You must claim that the theory of gravity is a fact, or your argument falls.
> I'm sorry, John, "it seems" is not good enough. It is still an explanation
> that has missing pieces of data to explain.

I can't tell what you mean by "the theory of gravity" here, nor what you
mean by "gravity is a fact", nor what the difference is.

>>Now, you seem to think
>>that "gravity" is an observation. I wonder why, when it seems to me to
>>be a conclusion based on many observations of things falling. (And of
>>course those observations are themselves inferences too, but never mind
>>that for the moment.) How is "gravity" a direct observation to you?
>
> Sheesh. How is it to you? Been flying on your pig lately?

Again you seem to be implying that inferences must be wrong or
uncertain. If gravity is a theory as well as a fact, then for some
reason that means that pigs must fly. I have no idea where this notion
comes from.

>>>Data can and is always being added to, as you are
>>>doubtlessly well aware. The only thing we can call "facts" are testable,
>>>repeatable observations.
>>
>>Whatever that means. Inferences can be testable and repeatable. If they
>>weren't, there would be no science.
>
> Reasoning is not *testable* nor *repeatable* in the scientific sense.

If you say so. That would make science impossible if it were true.

> And if
> it were as you say, there would really be trouble in the science world,
> since, as I've said before, not everyone agrees at any one time on much of
> anything. So if reasoning were to be held to scientific standards of
> evidence as such, they would fail regularly.

If reasoning isn't held toscientific standards of evidence, then what is
left of science? I have no idea what you think this means.

>>Even if there were such things as
>>"facts" separate from inferences, if inferences were not testable and
>>repeatable, all we would get from science would be boxes full of those
>>theory-free "facts".
>
> Why in the world would you think that, John? Theory attempts to explain
> facts.

If theories are not testable, there is no science. Theory attempts to
explain facts, and each of the facts it attempts to explain is itself a
theory. Why is this a problem?

>>So we are left with "observation" to distinguish
>>facts from inferences. And we're back to asking what you mean by
>>observation, and what exactly distinguishes an observation from an
>>inference.
>
> Do you have a mouse in your pocket, or what.

No, but I am glad to see you.

> WE *do* have data and facts to
> "distinguish" from inferences, but that isn't the point. I've told you
> enough times now, John. Observation is not inference. "What exactly"
> distinguishes the two is reasoning. Data simply exists; reasoning is what is
> done to make inferences from that data. Data isn't "reasoned" nor inferred.

So you claim. I claim it is. I have explained for several cases how what
you consider to be naked facts do indeed lie at the end of a chain of
inference. As with the bowling ball and gravity.

>>>The bowling ball will hit you on the head every
>>>time. Reasoning does not, as is so evident in science. Gravity does not
>>>reason.
>>
>>I don't know what the ability, or lack thereof, of gravity to reason has
>>to do with it.
>
> Gravity does not care what inferences you make, it does not discriminate,
> nor does any reasoning alter the fact or observation in any way.

The first two phrases are irrelevant. The third is nonsensical. Of
course reasoning doesn't alter the fact or observation. Reasoning
creates the fact or observation through inference from raw sensory
inputs. Again you seem to be saddled with the idea that reasoning or
inference must be uncertain, arbitrary, or false. This is not the case.
Inferences can be true or false. If you infer that there is no gravity,
you are wrong. If you infer that there is gravity, you are right. In
neither case is gravity affected. Gravity kindly provides strong
evidence for its existence.

.

Relevant Pages
Loading