The Science Delusion, a talk banned by TED

[Mr.Samsa]

Man, this is exhausting. Another gigantic post I have to pick apart because Samsa appears to not understand basic logic, and won't post the full quote stream of the discussion so i have to spend ages flicking back and forth to try and find what the context and exact quotes were. But someone's got to set him straight!...

...Which is it? Is my post a problem because it's gigantic or because I didn't quote everything? Either way I'd be fucked.

By the way, as a simple summary point, it's clear what the main problem is with our disagreement (apart from his failure of logic). Samsa thinks that logical assessments of investigations into reality tell us something about reality. I claim that they only tell us about the investigations, not the underlying reality. Surely my claim isn't up for debate?

Of course it's up for debate. I've explained in detail why you're wrong. Either you explain why I'm wrong, or you present an argument as to why you're right. It's useless to just keep blindly asserting that you don't agree.

In fact, Samsa has kind of agreed with this at times by responding to these points with the claim that discarding a logically fallacious (maybe not the right term) argument about the investigation into reality, tells us something about reality itself.

Yes, for example, a logical impossibility tells us that reality cannot look like that logical impossibility.

As I've explained (well, I've explained the corollary), it would if the premises that that logic was based on were truths.

And they are.

Since they are assumptions, then it can't actually tell us anything outside a system in which those assumptions were true. This is the bit of logic that Samsa doesn't seem to get, and is my basis for saying that he is failing at basic logic. Surely this isn't up for debate, right?

That would be because we're not talking about assumptions, as I've corrected you on multiple times to which you haven't responded.

[JimC]

Reality is such a loaded term...

It means whatever anybody wants it to mean, in one sense. A pragmatically defined consensual reality is as much as we can ever actually achieve, and at least a systematic, evidence-based method of enquiry gives some chance of avoiding the paralysis of solipsism...

[pErvinalia]

Edit added, Samsa. Reply to that, then I'll reply to both your posts.

[pErvinalia]

Man, this is exhausting. Another gigantic post I have to pick apart because Samsa appears to not understand basic logic, and won't post the full quote stream of the discussion so i have to spend ages flicking back and forth to try and find what the context and exact quotes were. But someone's got to set him straight!...

...Which is it? Is my post a problem because it's gigantic or because I didn't quote everything? Either way I'd be fucked.

Don't be disingenuous. Just quote the full fucking quote stream. It's not hard, ffs. And it greatly aids in the ability to have a smooth debate. And it also will reduce the chances of you getting away with your misrepresentations.

[pErvinalia]

Reality is such a loaded term...

It means whatever anybody wants it to mean, in one sense. A pragmatically defined consensual reality is as much as we can ever actually achieve, and at least a systematic, evidence-based method of enquiry gives some chance of avoiding the paralysis of solipsism...

Yeah, talking about really trully underlying reality is basically pointless. It doesn't effect us in the slightest. We exist under the scientific method and a sort of pragmatic realism.

[Mr.Samsa]

**Edit: just to add... I think this is causing us to talk past each other a bit. He is talking about "reality" as a concept, I'm talking about reality as in the really real thing that underpins our existence. I.e. When I ask for what metaphysics is telling us about reality, I want to hear about what it's made of, how it functions, how we interact with it. I.e. the equivalent concept to what science calls the physical. He is talking about an abstract concept. Not a "thing".

We're talking about the same thing.

But then, he does try and say that metaphysics when it discards an illogical assertion about reality is telling us something about that reality. The example he keeps mindlessly banging on about is substance dualism.

To be fair, I wouldn't have to keep "banging on about it" if you had just responded to it the first couple of times I raised it...

He is saying that underlying reality can't be modelled in the way of substance dualism, because some logical statement regarding it is found to be incoherent. If that logical statement involves an assumption, which it must (as we don't have access to underlying reality), then that is a fallacious conclusion.

Huh? Where have I said that reality can't be modelled in terms of substance dualism or that it is incoherent? The closest is when I've said "if substance dualism is impossible", which is an entirely different thing.

I'm interested in hearing your support for the claim that logical statements must involve an assumption though (and the use of "fallacious" doesn't really work there).

...Which is it? Is my post a problem because it's gigantic or because I didn't quote everything? Either way I'd be fucked.

Don't be disingenuous. Just quote the full fucking quote stream. It's not hard, ffs. And it greatly aids in the ability to have a smooth debate. And it also will reduce the chances of you getting away with your misrepresentations.

I'm not being disingenuous, you are literally criticising me for contradicting things - posts being too long and not long enough. And no, I'm not going to shove in irrelevant comments because you're too lazy you read back. If a comment is relevant, I include it.

Also, note that so far you've failed to demonstrated a single case of misrepresentation. However, in your attempt to show how I've misrepresented you, you've misrepresented me multiple times...

[Hermit]

Mr.Samsa. Here's the sticking point for me: Metaphysics is defined by several Greek philosophers from and other philosophers beyond as an examination of noumena - things-in-themselves. As such, they are, again by definition, not amenable to empirical enquiry. There is an unbridgeable gap between noumena and phenomena. We agree on that. So far, so good. But then you say "In metaphysics, the methods are non-empirical (because they consist of logical reasoning) but the conclusions can be empirical." Assuming the truth of that assertion for now, how can that not be regarded as a bridge?

[Mr.Samsa]

Mr.Samsa. Here's the sticking point for me: Metaphysics is defined by several Greek philosophers from and other philosophers beyond as an examination of noumena - things-in-themselves. As such, they are, again by definition, not amenable to empirical enquiry. There is an unbridgeable gap between noumena and phenomena. We agree on that. So far, so good. But then you say "In metaphysics, the methods are non-empirical (because they consist of logical reasoning) but the conclusions can be empirical." Assuming the truth of that assertion for now, how can that not be regarded as a bridge?

Because reaching conclusions that are consistent with empirical observations is not saying that noumena can be discovered through empirical enquiry. As I made clear in the post that the comment comes from and the posts surrounding it, the enquiry is logical, metaphysical, non-empirical, etc.

The point is that noumena and phenomena can be the same thing - when you look at a tree it can actually be a tree. You can't use empirical evidence to reach that conclusion (i.e. the gap), but the conclusion can be that what you observe is real (i.e. the conclusions can be empirical).

I don't see how there is a contradiction there, unless you're saying that the gap between noumena and phenomena means that what we observe can never be real, in which case I don't understand why you'd think that. The gap is essentially similar to the is-ought or fact-value gap, in that the facts about the world cannot tell us about the meaning behind them. It's unbridgeable only in the sense that you can't leap from one to the other but there's obviously no problem with "bridging" them in the sense that you use non-empirical means to get from one to the other.

For example, in ethics the gap between is and ought is unbridgeable; facts about the world can never tell you how you should behave. However, once you lay down the ethical groundwork to make those facts morally relevant then they can inform your behavior, and so the gap is "bridged" only in the sense that we've found another way around. The same applies to metaphysics in that the empirical can't tell us about the noumena, but if we develop a logical framework in which we prove that phenomena and noumena are identical (like with naive realism) then we will necessarily conclude that what we observe is real; our metaphysical conclusions will be empirical.

[pErvinalia]

What does it matter if anyone has said that? I haven't claimed that anyone has.

But you keep saying "then how can we say it's doing a good job of describing reality?". For the nth time, no one is saying that it does a good job of describing reality. Do you understand this? If you understand this, then why do you keep saying that??

Because your whole point is that it could be describing reality, which is why you disagreed with my claim that it is shit at describing reality.

That doesn't explain why you keep asking how "we" can say it's doing a good job of describing reality. As I've said at least three times now, NO ONE is saying that it does a good job of describing reality. So why the fuck are you saying that "we" are saying that??

Let's just recap for a second:

1) I offhandedly mention that science is shit at describing reality (as part of a comparison)

And I've pointed out to you that is a baseless assumption. It is as idiotic as saying that science is good at describing reality. You have absolutely no evidence to suggest whether science is good, bad, or average at describing reality. That's because WE DON'T KNOW WHAT REALITY IS.

2) you disagree and say that it could be good at describing reality, we just don't know

I.e. I'm agnostic on it. Which is the correct position to take until something changes.

3) I reply by saying that even if it does accidentally describe reality in some accurate way we have no reason to believe that it does, in the same way that Harry Potter could be describing reality. As such, it does a shit job of describing reality.

That's a non-sequitur and yet another logic fail. Just because we don't know whether it does or doesn't describe reality, it doesn't follow that it must be shit at describing reality. That's a serious logic fail there, Samsa. It may in truth describe reality perfectly. In which case your logical assessment is clearly broken. You can only know it does a shit (or otherwise) job of describing reality when you know what reality is. Are you ready for it?? WE DON'T KNOW WHAT REALITY IS!

4) You ask me why I believe that science describes reality.

5) I bang my face into the desk again.

Because you didn't quote what I allegedly asked, I don't know at this instant exactly what I asked. And I'm sick of trawling around the thread trying to find what was said where. Remember, this isn't like ratskep where you can click on "wrote" and it will take you to the quote. I have to fucking trawl through the thread to find the exact point and quote. Quote the full quote stream, ffs.

If I want to answer a question about reality I'll look to metaphysics,

So you keep saying, but you haven't told us what metaphysics can actually tell us about reality. I've ask this question nx ( ) times, and still haven't got a detailed answer.

...I've answered you multiple times now and you haven't come up with a response. If you disagree with what I've explained then ask for a clarification or raise some concerns, don't just pretend it doesn't exist.

Don't lie, i've come up with plenty of responses. The problem isn't a lack of response, it's that you aren't following what I am saying. No need to lie. The point is, as I've made clear a number of times now, your claim is that the logical coherence of semantic investigations into reality tells us about reality, but i've repeatedly explained that I don't accept that they are telling us about reality. They are telling us about the logic of arguments. I've also explained that this is fallacious reasoning anyway, as logic is only as good as it's premises. I've said they are assumptions (which I argue that they must be, given WE KNOW NOTHING ABOUT REALITY), and you have asserted in reply (without any explanation at all) that they are based on truths. Fine, if they are, then explain what those truths are and show me how they aren't assumptions about underlying reality. Please don't keep lying by saying that things haven't been addressed. They have. And please stop suggesting that you don't answer quite frequently with bare assertions when you do. This case I've just highlighted of "true premises" is yet another one. You haven't explained at all why they are true or even what they are. You have merely asserted with a single sentence that they are.

The example I gave was that we can come up with solid reasons why we could never access reality.

Yeah, but that doesn't tell us about reality. That only tells us about investigation of reality (i.e that it will be impossible, in that case). As I've repeatedly explained to you, I'm interested in these claims about metaphysics telling us something about reality. I'm not interested in the slightest with the fact that any claim about reality is a metaphysical claim. As explained multiple times now to you, I don't dispute this. Yet you keep bringing it up like I do. Another reason why your argument in these two threads has been like a dog's breakfast.

If I were to complain that metaphysics sucks because it can't explain the observable world or complain that science sucks because it can't explain reality then I'd be barking up the wrong tree - the point is that they are shit at those things because they aren't attempting to answer those questions.

And no one debating you here would disagree with that. Hence why I don't understand why you keep bringing up these points.

YOU DID!

I said that science does a shit job of explaining reality because it doesn't attempt to do that. You replied saying that we don't know if it does a shit job or not and it might actually accidentally describe reality very well.

Ok, sorry, I fired that reply off too quick. What I meant is that no one would think that metaphysics or science suck for the reasons you stated. No one here (other than FBM) thinks that science describes reality. And no one thinks that metaphysics should explain the observable world. I of course disagree with your final segment - that being that science is shit at describing reality. As explained, you can't know this, so this is an illogical position to hold. You have to be agnostic on this point (because we simply can't know at this time).

Your point was that science could still be okay at describing reality because it might inadvertently get things right some of the time and I refuted it by pointing out that we can apply the same logic to Harry Potter.

How's that a refutation?? It does nothing to refute the logic that science could potentially be reflecting some element of the truth. Whether Harry Potter does or not is irrelevant to the logical truth that science could be.

The refutation is a reductio ad absurdum demonstration, followed by my explanation that if something gives us no reason to accept an explanation then it's by definition a bad explanation.

Another logic fail. You are assuming your conclusion. How do you know that Harry Potter doesn't describe reality? Of course, you can't know this. You only assume it based on your preconceived notions of what reality is. This is why your silly proclamation that science is shit as describing reality is silly. You have absolutely no way of knowing one way or the other.

Of course I'm not claiming that science attempts to describe reality, the entire point of my reply to Jim and the comment this whole line of discussion stemmed from was that science doesn't attempt to explain reality.

And no one, other than FBM (who you aren't replying to with this line of quotes), has said that it does. So why are you even talking about it?

Because you disagreed with me when I claimed that science does a shit job of describing reality because that's not what it is supposed to do! I've then spent the last couple of pages explaining why it does a shit job based on the fact that that's not what it's supposed to do, and now you're telling me you never even disagreed and all of your posts in this thread have magically disappeared.

No, as I explained in the other thread, you are operating under the condition of a false dichotomy. You can reply to it there. Don't reply here, it's getting too confusing with the two threads sharing concurrent themes.

You understand that this is an impossibly broad question, right? What metaphysics tells us is how to think about reality, what questions are reasonable about reality, what metaphysical positions are inconsistent or illogical, etc etc. You'll probably come back saying that it's too "vague" but if you ask a vague question then the only possible answer is a vague one.

No, I'll come back and say what I've said before: That's exactly what it does. It doesn't tell us anything at all about reality, only about the logical consistency of arguments involving the concept of "reality". But as you know, logic can be valid but not necessarily true (those are probably the incorrect terms for it; what I mean is that a logical statement can be logically consistent, but if the premises are false, the answer isn't correct outside the specific cases of the premises).

You think when I talk about metaphysics building logical frameworks that I'm only referring to valid arguments? You don't think any of the incredibly smart people in the field would have stopped to point that out?

I don't really know what you are saying there. It seems that you are relying on a fallacy of claiming that it's right because the experts claim it is right. (can't remember the fallacy name). As I said, I accept that this is a serious field with many many years of serious research and time devoted. I just want you to explain it. When I rebut something, I'm not claiming that expert A or B or C is wrong. I'm implying that your explanation isn't convincing me of what you are trying to convince me of.

More importantly, the point I'm going to keep banging on about because you keep dodging it, is that if you're saying that logical arguments can't tell us anything about reality then you are making a metaphysical claim.

You disingenuous twat. I've answered this multiple times. I am absolutely not "dodging" it. You might not agree with my reply, but that's not the same thing. No wonder you've got the rep you've got. Take a look at yourself, ffs.

So again!: I 100% agree with that. But it's got nothing to do with my enquiries of you to explain your claim that metaphysics tells us something about underlying reality. Please don't bring this point up again and claim I haven't addressed it.

Then my comment here seems a little strange: "They are used to argue in favour of particular views of reality.".

Yes, but that is meaningless. HOW does it argue in favour of one view of reality over another, given it has absolutely zero access to reality? It doesn't have anything to do with reality. It has everything to do with logical reasoning. Hence metaphysical evidence doesn't tell us anything at all about reality. It just tells us about the coherence of logical arguments about the concept of "reality".

Which is a comment about reality. Are you telling me that demonstrating a claim about reality to logically impossible doesn't tell us anything about whether reality would look like that logically impossible claim?

Yeah, I am. As I've answered this in another post, lets deal with it there.

And again, because it's rolled back around from frustrating to hilarious, I'll point out that you're making a metaphysical argument here.

Yeah, and again, I've never denied that. Twat. How about you stick to arguing contentious points, instead of constantly strawmanning?

You've only asked the question once and I responded (as linked above), I've ignored nothing. The problem here is that you don't seem to understand the topic well enough to ask the question you want to know the answer to.

Samsa, seriously. I responded to this crap in that thread and you didn't respond to it. So yes, you factually did ignore it. I await your wibble as to why that wasn't you ignoring it.

I've responded to every single post of yours. You link me and if I've somehow missed it then I'll reply.

You have now. But you hadn't then, when you made your claim that you had. Just fucking accept that sometimes you can be wrong. There's no shame in it, particularly in a case like this one where it's probably just a mix up due to there being two concurrent threads on the same topic.

And I agree that I don't understand the topic well enough, that's why I am asking you to explain it. But you are doing a woeful job as I've described above in this post. You're posting a lot of stuff that is irrelevant to anything anyone has said in debate with you, as if that is an answer to those rebuttals.

I'm not doing a woeful job, the problem is that you have an idea in mind and you're using that to colour everything that's being said. You somehow interpreted what I said to mean that metaphysics is coming up with arguments that are only logically valid!

I don't know that I interpreted that. The main problem I see is as I described in post a little while ago in this thread. You think that the logical validity of investigations into reality tell us something about reality. I say that they only tell us something about the investigations themselves, not reality. Put it this way, if there was a branch of philosophy that assessed the logical validity of investigations into tax fraud, would that tell us anything about tax itself? I think absolutely not. It would only tell us about the logical failings of said investigations.

You've repeatedly said that metaphysics tells us something about reality.

Not just "said", remember, but demonstrated.

Well I beg to differ. Your examples of parsimony and pragmatism tell us nothing about reality. They are assumptions to help us focus our efforts. You have merely asserted that they tell us something about reality. But your logic has been decidedly lacking in that department.

That is either factually bollocks (which I suspect it is, as you haven't been able to show one thing it tells us about reality), or you aren't explaining it well enough, or my preferred option - you are being sloppy with your language. When asked for you to show me something metaphysics tell us about reality, you just keep pointing out it's approach to logical investigation. That's not telling us a single thing about reality. That's only telling us what metaphysics actually appears to be, that is - a method to logically assess claims about reality. That is, it can discard some claims as false (due to failure in logic), but it can't prove any claim at all, as the premises it relies on are assumptions. And that's fine if that's all it does, but in that case "metaphysical evidence" is a bit of a bait and switch scam. It's just simply standard logical reasoning that is totally independent of anything to do with reality (other than the fact that "reality" is being hypothesised about). We don't need Metapicnics to discuss the logical validity of arguments involving picnic tables. We just use standard logic.

Are you serious?... You're whole problem is that an area of specialised inquiry has been given a name?

No, you disingenuous twat. As i've repeatedly stated, in BOTH that bit you quoted and the paragraph that followed, I have no problem with metaphysics when it is providing a logical framework on which to frame assessments about reality/observation/etc. The problem I have (as explained a bazillion times) is that you claim it has some access to reality. That's the alleged part of metaphysics that I have a problem with. So could you stop being a disingenuous twat now? Thanks.

Having said all that, I certainly appreciate the role of metaphysics in explicating the various positions and ideologies regarding science and observation. But none of that tells me a single thing about reality. It just tells me about what science is doing and what it isn't doing. (which I already knew very well).

It tells us what science can do in regards to reality, which is knowledge about reality (i.e. that it isn't accessible by science).

I must have missed that bit. Can you explain how it is that science definitively can't tell us about reality (other than the obvious fact that we have no idea what reality is, therefore we have nothing to compare science to)?

As I answered last time, they are used to argue in favour of particular views of reality.

Stop repeating empty assertions. I've asked you repeatedly to tell me how they do this. Just saying they do this absent of any explanation (showing your work), is useless.

I've explained in detail how they do it, in the very post that you are replying to. That's just dishonesty at it's most ridiculous...

If only you'd bother quoting the post I am replying to, then I could make an assessment of this claim...

If someone thinks that the whole discussion of reality is pointless and that all that matters is that you believe the bus is real before it hits you because it's useful to do so then you justify that claim about reality using something like pragmatism - that's metaphysics, that's metaphysical evidence for that claim.

That didn't tell me anything in the slightest about "reality".

Of course it fucking does. It's a claim about reality that is being supported. That's something about reality.

Yeah, it's a claim about the word "reality". But it tells me nothing about the real "thing" of reality.

You either need to figure out what the fuck you're trying to say and word it properly, or stop this ridiculous word game where justified claims about reality suddenly don't have anything to say about reality. By definition it must be true that justified claims about reality tell us something about reality.

I'm losing track of where I've explained this to you and how many times I've done it, so I'm going to assume that when you wrote this post you hadn't seen it. I don't give a fuck about the circular logic that metaphysics deals with reality just because 'reality' the word forms part of it's definition. That's idiotic. I can define something anyway I like. Doesn't mean it is logically coherent. I am interested in what metaphysics can allegedly tell us about reality the "thing", not the word.

How are you going to argue in favour of one view of reality over another, when metaphysics provides no probability assessments? A metaphysical statement is either logically consistent or it isn't. Therefore, you don't "favour" one over the other. You discard the logically incoherent view.

Why do you think it provides no probability assessments? You judge the positions on the weight of the evidence. Not all positions are shown to be logically incoherent, they can simply be problematic or fail to fully account for the same kinds of data that other theories explain better, and so they are weighted accordingly.

WHOAH, you are going to have to flesh this one out. To determine probability you need to know the full set of what the probability is being applied to. Since we KNOW NOTHING ABOUT REALITY, how on earth can we assign probabilities to statements about it?? One reasoned argument being more logical than another tells us absolutely nothing about he probabilities of whether it reflects reality or not. And even if it could under whatever bizarre mathematics you studied to learn probability, you'd still face the problem that the premises of that logic are assumptions. Yes, I know you claim they are truths, so there's no need to reply to that particular aspect here. We can deal with it where ever it was we were discussing that point.

If you think that reality can be explained without appealing to things 'behind the illusions' and that the simplest answer is the correct one, that there is no need to multiply beyond necessity, etc, then parsimony can be used to justify that metaphysical claim.

That doesn't tell me anything in the slightest about "reality".

Of course it does! I've just demonstrated how. Come on now, don't just use this meaningless throwaway line over and over. If you disagree, then argue it properly.

I have. That's an assumption that is used for pragmatic reasons. There is absolutely no reason why multiplying unknowns is necessarily and universally a false description of reality. It is simply used to make investigation into things more ordered and simple. I.e. it's a system tool, not an explanation of anything in reality (necessarily).

Both of those are philosophical approaches to science. Science tells us nothing whatsoever about "reality".

No they aren't! Jesus christ, why the fuck do you keep saying that? Pragmatism and parsimony are concepts that precede the existence of science. They are used across all of philosophy and applied to various fields. They are sometimes relevant to science so they're used there. They aren't solely scientific concepts.

Yes, yes, I get it. It still doesn't change the fact that they are philosophical tools, not methods for investigating reality (as explained above and about a thousand times before).

Huh? Parsimony and pragmatism aren't tools to apply to science, they are philosophical tools full stop. They can be applied to science, or ethics, or metaphysics, or epistemology, etc.

That's right, they are "philosophical tools". Tell me again how philosophy has any access to reality? It doesn't.

I have. If you disagree, it's now your turn to argue your point. No more throwaway lines, come up with a coherent rebuttal.

I've written paragraphs on this in multiple posts. That's not "throwaway lines". Stop debating like a juvenile.

You couldn't find it because you didn't reply, you've only just replied in the other thread.

Christ, Samsa. What the fuck is going on at your end of the internet. Check the bloody time stamps. I replied to it before you made this dumb post. And of course I didn't reply to it in this thread, you didn't ask the fucking question in this thread. If you can't keep track of where discussion are happening, then that's not my concern. Don't get snarky at me because you thought I hadn't replied because you were confused.

The time stamps say that you replied 3 minutes after you claimed here that you had replied.

Spooky, must be ghosts fucking up timestamps on the internet.

Because you refuse to use the quote system in a helpful way, I'm not going to go fishing around over an inconsequential point. However, I do remember enough to know that when I wrote that reply preceding the quote here, I found it in the other thread as I was writing it. That is, I WROTE IT BEFORE your reply here. But I'm not going to go hunting to confirm any of this, because I'm sick of doing that as a substitute for you quoting properly.

What? Is this like the return of logical positivism or something? If I show you that a concept is a logical impossibility, you'd think it is as equally likely as a logically possible, coherent, and plausible concept? Really?

You haven't shown it's logically impossible. If you did, and it was based on reasonable premises, then of course I wouldn't think they were equally likely. That's a strawman of the argument. If you want to go ahead and show me why one is logically impossible, and then ask me the question again, then go ahead and do it. But don't play this 'gotcha' crap.

You're missing the point and there is no "gotcha" crap. You claimed that "without empiricism no way of forming an opinion of which is more likely than the other". Presenting two concepts, one that is a logical impossibility and the other a logical possibility, with no empirical content, you are forced to say that each are equally likely based on your commitment to empiricism.

However, of course it's fucking ridiculous to think that they are both equally likely - one is impossible! And that's why your claim is wrong.

I've answered this in a number of posts already. We can deal with it there. Without going into specifics (because i've done it elsewhere twice at least), you are making an assumption there, and it is making an ass out of you (but not me. ).

No, that's not good enough. I've rebutted your answers.

You didn't even respond to half of them, let alone rebut them!

Samsa, you don't even know what fucking thread you are posting in and you claimed above that you hadn't ignored a reply of mine when you factually had. Sort your shit out. Just don't involve me in it.

I know what thread I'm responding in, I've replied to all of your comments that I know of. Link to one I've missed.

Fuck it. Why not. I'm doing this just to show you that you are wrong, and you have a serious problem with admitting you are wrong. You've since responded to it, so it's not important any more that you didn't originally respond to it, but I'm going to do this just to show you how belligerent you are.

I've given up flicking through 4000 word posts to try and find it. If you'd just simply included the full quote stream I could instantly find it and show you how you fucked up. But instead I've got to spend all fucking night wading through your crap to try and find it. Jesus Christ, INCLUDE THE FULL QUOTE STREAM IN YOUR REPLIES. You're as bad as Seth in being intransigent.

I can lead a horse to water, but if I say something is "metaphysical evidence" and it gets interpreted as descriptions of reality, then there's literally nothing I can do.

You're the one who keeps saying it tell us something about "reality". It does no such thing at all, other than discarding illogical claims about reality.

It does more than that, as I've demonstrated and hopefully you'll reply in depth to some of them at some point, but even if the only thing it did was to discard illogical claims about reality - that's telling us something about reality! How the fuck can it not?

I've addressed this somewhere else. We can deal with it there.

I can only control the words I use, I can't control wild misinterpretations of what I'm saying. I have explained the position in detail and yet you've ignored most of the substantive responses to your questions in favour of snipped out single lines where you complain that it's not detailed enough for you (whilst ignoring all the context around it that explains it).

Bullshit. As shown above, your replies are being ignored as they are irrelevant to anything anyone is debating you about. When you say something relevant, then I respond. But most of your responses that are relevant are empty assertions and one liners. You need to 'show your working' if you want to convince any one of anything.

Fuck off - you ask how metaphysics can help us decide between positions and I raise the question of how you weight the possibility of substance dualism. You ignore it over and over again until you realise that you've claimed that you answered it and then you scrambled to respond so it looked like you had.

Huh? I've addressed your point about substance dualism at least three times now, probably four.

I have expanded and shown my working, you haven't responded to them at all which leads me to suspect that (3) is the most likely explanation here. I mean, just look at how long it took to figure out that "metaphysics" did not mean "non-physical" or "non-empirical".

Man you are a dishonest piece of work. This is why everyone thinks you misrepresent them all the time. Tell me, how long did it take to work out that metaphysics did not mean blah blah blah?? Seriously, go back and fucking look at it. It took one post for you to correct me. Stop being a dishonest wanker.

There's nothing dishonest about it, it was multiple posts. The discussion would still be going on (as it was about whether mathematics was a metaphysical field) but the only reason it ended was because you said you were tired of it!

Physician, heal thyself. One post my fucking ass.

You really are a twat. This is totally inconsequential to the debate. I was mistaken about something and you corrected me on it. I accept that correction. What the fuck does this have to do with anything? So what if it took one or two or three posts?? Are we still talking about it, other than your trolling by bringing it up??

And I provided that, I even expanded on it above (which was the first time you asked for a clarification).

Rubbish. You clearly are lost as to what's been said and what hasn't been said. Your whole collection of posts on this topic across the two threads are coming across as confused and jaded. Wake up or go and pester some other forum.

You can keep ignoring refutations of your position but I seriously urge you to actually read what's written and consider that you might be wrong. Sticking your head in the sand and blaming others for not being able to understand it for you is not helping anybody.

No one can understand what you are saying, Samsa. That's why no one is agreeing with you on the contentious points in the thread. Sure, we could all be dummies, but it's clear that we aren't. You simply aren't explaining things properly, because 1, you jump at anti-philosophy shadows, and 2. because your logic in this discussion has been woeful (as I've shown many times now).

We have no way of knowing before we do metaphysics, and then we gather evidence to determine which positions are more or less likely.

Again, how are you going to determine "likelihood"? That implies a probability measure. Where is this probability assessment coming from? And how can you tell what's more likely than anything else (particularly if two separate views are logically coherent) when we have zero idea of what reality actually is.

The probability comes from the strength of the evidence, its explanatory power, its coherence, and a whole host of other things.

Word salad. As I've asked you to explain this earlier in this post, we can leave it there.

And additionally, what evidence are we "gathering"? That makes it sound like empiricism. What exactly is being "gathered"?

Logical evidence, as we've discussed in great detail already (probably in those posts of mine that you thought were irrelevant and ignored).

Logical evidence isn't lying around waiting to be stumbled across. You have to create it. And it is all created on premises based on assumptions (or possibly alternatively on empirical observations). Hence it can't tell us anything about reality outside the conditions imposed by the premised assumptions.

More importantly, as I've mentioned a few times now and you haven't commented on, if you claim that there is no way of knowing what reality is then you are making a metaphysical claim.

Why would I need to comment on it when I agree with it 100%. All I care about in this debate is working about what all the bollocks about evidence of reality is. I've heard nothing at all about reality (and I don't expect to hear anything about it, give we know exactly zero about it). I've only heard about logic. I already know about logic. Metaphysics in the descriptions by you and Eff so far has added absolutely nothing to that knowledge.

Logic of claims about reality tell us about reality. If substance dualism is logically impossible then we know that reality cannot look like that. How is this not getting through to you?

Because you haven't explained why substance dualism is illogical. You are assuming that I know this (or additionally you are assuming it is illogical). Until you explain it to me, I have no way of assessing whether it is illogical or not. How is this not getting through to you?

If you make a valid logical proposition about a claim regarding reality then that tells us about reality.

Another empty assertion. Show your damn working if you want to convince us of this stuff. Can you not see how useless your reply was?? THIS is what I'm talking about with your efforts so far in this discussion. So show your working. How does making a valid logical proposition limited by it's premises and assumptions tells us anything at all about reality. Once again, we know absolutely zero about what reality is. So how are you going to determine if it is actually telling us something about reality?

It's not an empty assertion, it's something which is true by definition. There is no working needed to be done there, it is necessarily true.

Do you see how worthless your responses are now?

No I don't, because you haven't shown why it is necessarily true. THAT'S why it is an empty assertion (at present). And that's why my response isn't worthless.

Rereading it again, it seems you are playing semantic games again. As I've said repeatedly, I don't care about a self-referential proof of definition. I care about how it is metaphysics supposedly tells us something about underlying reality (i.e the "thing"). As far as I can tell you haven't addressed my point about it being limited by it's premises and assumptions (which you've stated elsewhere you claim are truths).

You are arguing against things that are simply true by definition. Your only response is to say that you don't like the label that has been chosen to describe those terms.

No, I've been clear. I'm not impressed by semantic games. I want to know how metaphysics tells us something about reality. Not that it does that because that is the way it is defined. That would be an idiotic thing to be hung up on.

It is the default position and there is no evidence at all possible for or against it. So the point remains - it needs to be justified in some way. What we have there is essentially the problem of induction, which we know is essentially unsolvable. You avoid it by appealing to pragmatism, which requires you to accept severe limitations on what you can claim using science (specifically no strong metaphysical claims) and that's what Sheldrake is angling at.

Assumptions and axioms don't need to be justified. They form part of the system. This sounds like someone on the other board trying to say that the scientific method needs to be justified. You rightly rubbish those statements there, but here you are doing the same thing with the philosophical assumptions of science.

Assumptions and axioms absolutely do need to be justified and they need to be interpreted carefully in order to be aware of the limitations they bring. And I'd never rubbish anyone who says that the scientific method needs to be justified, it absolutely does need to be and that's my entire position in this thread as I've defended the part of Sheldrake's position which says that the scientific method needs to be justified.

In my view they don't need to be justified at all. If you think they do, why is that? Assumptions can be anything at all, and can be totally fantastical. There's no need to justify the truth or consistency of them, unless you are focussed on proving some truth. But since science doesn't do that, there is no need to justify the assumptions and axioms. Science, in a sense, is self-justifying. It justifies it's worth by working.

And on your statement that the scientific method needs justifying... explain that. Why does it need justifying and how is it justified?

Nobody is talking about a deist god, my example is of a very active and very influential interventionist god. And yes, there is no difference between that god and natural laws but that's not the point - it was claimed that if such a thing did exist, since it was untestable and unprovable then it cannot have an effect on the world. It clearly would so the claim is necessarily false.

I think XC was talking about it having an effect on the world outside of natural laws and processes. If god was indistinguishable from natural laws and processes then he wouldn't actually be having an effect on the world in the sense that XC was talking about.

But he would be, he would be controlling those laws. XC's position would be absurd if that were the case.

I disagree. And XC confirmed that this (my description of his position) is what he was talking about.

Mr.Samsa, Mind reaching back for a bit? You really do confuse me. My impression is that you keep making contradictory statements.

No shit. He talks constantly about "reality" but provides only a treatise on logic. Logic tells us nothing at all about reality.

So you think logical impossibilities could be real?

Yep. I've explained this elsewhere.

And additionally, he said earlier that he couldn't think of a metaphysical statement that was based on empirical observation. Yet in his last post to me when describing pragmatism, he based it on empirical observation.

What, where? Pragmatism is a logical point, not an empirical one. As I stated back at the beginning of this or the other thread, empirical evidence needs to be accounted for by metaphysical positions. It can even become relevant when the metaphysical work has already been done (i.e. it can inform our positions).

Talk about fucking dishonesty.

There's no dishonesty (well, none from me). You based your justification of pragmatism (and probably parsimony too) on empirical observation. When you were talking about "the bus", was that not an empirically observed bus?

Usually he fills out details to the nth degree to try and get his point across. In this debate and in the other thread he's been sloppy and decidedly lacking in detail.

The only reason I haven't been able to fill out huge details is because in this thread I've been bogged down trying to get very simple issues across. Like the fact that a logical impossibility must have an impact on what reality looks like.

Well you need to spend time on the rebuttals to this. I've done it a number of times.


[thank fuck that reply is over. Now to hit reply and see how many quotes i've borked. It could be another hour before I get the quotes sorted]...

\edit: holy fuck, i got them all right, I think!

[DaveDodo007]

You have got to be fucking kidding me right.

[Hermit]

The point is that noumena and phenomena can be the same thing - when you look at a tree it can actually be a tree. You can't use empirical evidence to reach that conclusion (i.e. the gap), but the conclusion can be that what you observe is real (i.e. the conclusions can be empirical)

What gives you the idea that without a noumenon of a tree we cannot come up with the concept of "tree"? Why can we not form abstractions from real life - from empirical evidence? Do you think it is impossible to conceptualise something after repeatedly experiencing similar things? I think we learn these things by sheer, brute repeated experience. We learn from it, and we generalise because we notice the repetition and give the repeated experience a name. How many times would a caveman venture out for food, and return wet without inventing the name "rain" for what had happened. It's a convenient and useful abbreviation for communication when, upon his return, he is asked why he is shivering and glistening. Good thing, the other members of his tribe have the same ability to conceptualise too. Without this ability none of us would be discussing metaphysics right now. I venture to say that none of us would have been born. We need no fucking noumena. Metaphysics is an unfortunate cul-de-sac.

I see why we don't understand each other now. You're a Platonist of sorts.

I don't see how there is a contradiction there, unless you're saying that the gap between noumena and phenomena means that what we observe can never be real

I'm definitely not saying that. On the contrary. I regard the ontological existence of a noumenon we might call tree nothing but a confabulation by people with too much time on their hands. As for the "realness" of things, it's completely irrelevant to me. For all I know, I'm just a brain in a vat. Or not. I just don't care. What I do care about, what does make a difference to me is what I perceive.

[pErvinalia]

By the way, as a simple summary point, it's clear what the main problem is with our disagreement (apart from his failure of logic). Samsa thinks that logical assessments of investigations into reality tell us something about reality. I claim that they only tell us about the investigations, not the underlying reality. Surely my claim isn't up for debate?

Of course it's up for debate. I've explained in detail why you're wrong. Either you explain why I'm wrong, or you present an argument as to why you're right. It's useless to just keep blindly asserting that you don't agree.

There's fundamentally a difference between an investigation of something and the thing itself. I thought this was self-evident. That's why I don't think it is a contentious statement.

As I've explained (well, I've explained the corollary), it would if the premises that that logic was based on were truths.

And they are.

Yes, yes, I know you can make bare assertions. Do you think you might expand on your three words there?

Since they are assumptions, then it can't actually tell us anything outside a system in which those assumptions were true. This is the bit of logic that Samsa doesn't seem to get, and is my basis for saying that he is failing at basic logic. Surely this isn't up for debate, right?

That would be because we're not talking about assumptions, as I've corrected you on multiple times to which you haven't responded.

Stop lying. Of course I've responded. I've asked you a number of times now to explain why they aren't assumptions and why they are truths.

**Edit: just to add... I think this is causing us to talk past each other a bit. He is talking about "reality" as a concept, I'm talking about reality as in the really real thing that underpins our existence. I.e. When I ask for what metaphysics is telling us about reality, I want to hear about what it's made of, how it functions, how we interact with it. I.e. the equivalent concept to what science calls the physical. He is talking about an abstract concept. Not a "thing".

We're talking about the same thing.

We're clearly not, because when you tell me that metaphysics can tell us something about underlying reality, I only get semantics as explanations. Where are the details of how it functions, what it is composed of, and/or how we interact with it? The fact that you keep referring to the self-referential definition of metaphysics (i.e. it is defined as investigating reality, therefore it is investigating reality), would indicate that you don't know what it is that I am asking. As I've said many times, I don't care about the dictionary definition of metaphysics. I want to know how it works, and specifically how it does what you claim it does when you say it tells us something about reality (i.e. underlying reality, not semantic investigations into reality).

But then, he does try and say that metaphysics when it discards an illogical assertion about reality is telling us something about that reality. The example he keeps mindlessly banging on about is substance dualism.

To be fair, I wouldn't have to keep "banging on about it" if you had just responded to it the first couple of times I raised it...

'
Stop lying, naughty boy. I've responded to it multiple times now, including the first time you raised it.

He is saying that underlying reality can't be modelled in the way of substance dualism, because some logical statement regarding it is found to be incoherent. If that logical statement involves an assumption, which it must (as we don't have access to underlying reality), then that is a fallacious conclusion.

Huh? Where have I said that reality can't be modelled in terms of substance dualism or that it is incoherent? The closest is when I've said "if substance dualism is impossible", which is an entirely different thing.

You've repeatedly said that substance dualism is illogical, and in the same context (usually in the same paragraph) that we can know what reality isn't by rejecting illogical claims about reality. Please don't make me quote them as I'd have to troll through these interminable threads again. Surely you don't debate you've said this?

I'm interested in hearing your support for the claim that logical statements must involve an assumption though

Well, given these are statements about the nature of underlying reality, then they must involve at least one premise concerning the underlying nature of reality. And since we know absolutely nothing about the underlying nature of reality, then they by necessity must be assumptions. Unless these logical statements don't have premises concerned with underlying reality, which I can't envisage at the moment. Hopefully you've explained it somewhere where I've questioned you on this already.

(and the use of "fallacious" doesn't really work there).

I'm pretty sure you know what I mean. Just substitute in the correct term. I'm not one to be shut out of a conversation because I'm not up with the vernacular. I'm happy to be corrected or to explain what I mean.

...Which is it? Is my post a problem because it's gigantic or because I didn't quote everything? Either way I'd be fucked.

Don't be disingenuous. Just quote the full fucking quote stream. It's not hard, ffs. And it greatly aids in the ability to have a smooth debate. And it also will reduce the chances of you getting away with your misrepresentations.

I'm not being disingenuous, you are literally criticising me for contradicting things - posts being too long and not long enough.

Where did I criticise you for making posts too long?? You're logic is shithouse, Samsa. I was lamenting that the posts are so long. That isn't criticism of you or anyone. Even if it was, half the text in every post is mine (probably more, since I'm responding in greater depth than you).

And no, I'm not going to shove in irrelevant comments because you're too lazy you read back. If a comment is relevant, I include it.

Don't be Seth, it's unbecoming. If you can easily make the process easier for those involved then you should do it. Everyone else tries their best. If you are going to be a belligerent cunt, then you'll get treated like one.

Also, note that so far you've failed to demonstrated a single case of misrepresentation. However, in your attempt to show how I've misrepresented you, you've misrepresented me multiple times..

bullshit! I'm not getting into this. We've all seen the script a thousand times before (well some here wouldn't have; but those who frequent or frequented ratskep would have).

[pErvinalia]

You have got to be fucking kidding me right.

Sorry, Dave, it has to be done. It's the only way to stop him. He's like the terminator. You have to somehow outlast him. Luckily I am a keyboard warrior of such exceptional singularity that I am more than up to this task (even though I am in the middle of moving house right now... )

[pErvinalia]

He is saying that underlying reality can't be modelled in the way of substance dualism, because some logical statement regarding it is found to be incoherent. If that logical statement involves an assumption, which it must (as we don't have access to underlying reality), then that is a fallacious conclusion.

Huh? Where have I said that reality can't be modelled in terms of substance dualism or that it is incoherent? The closest is when I've said "if substance dualism is impossible", which is an entirely different thing.

You've repeatedly said that substance dualism is illogical, and in the same context (usually in the same paragraph) that we can know what reality isn't by rejecting illogical claims about reality. Please don't make me quote them as I'd have to troll through these interminable threads again. Surely you don't debate you've said this?

Hello:

I'm not sure where to start if you don't accept that metaphysical investigations have told us anything. Do you believe that substance dualism is just as likely as physicalism (i.e. that it's just as likely that we're controlled by a disembodied mind as it is that we're controlled by natural physical processes of the brain)? If not, the reasons you give will be based on evidence gathered and generated by metaphysicians.

Why would I say that they aren't as equally likely (from a metaphysical point of view)?? If we exclude empirical observations, which we must if we are trying to make claims about reality, then there is simply nothing to go by to accept one position over the other. I have absolutely no way of telling which one is more likely than the other.

I've responded to this in the other thread but I find it weird that you think a logically impossible concept is just as likely as a logically possible one. That is just baffling to me.

I didn't copy the link to what post this was from, but to throw your own belligerence back at you - go find it yourself you lazy cunt!

I present two options, one is logically impossible and the other is logically possible.

http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 0#p1569161

[pErvinalia]

Because of your fucked up quoting regimen, it took me over half an hour to find that. And you expect me to find all the other fuck ups you've made? Sure, if i've got a lazy 3 or 4 hours. Fuck that. Start quoting properly. Unless you've got something to hide, that is...