The Science Delusion, a talk banned by TED

[pErvinalia]

As a show of good faith, I'll start it off: your main problem with claims about reality is that you don't think we can "access" reality so we can't say anything about it. Perhaps the bit you're getting stuck on is that we're only developing coherent and plausible views of what reality could be, and we weigh the evidence for and against various views. If it helps, think of it more as attempting to rationally justify claims about reality rather than some kind of deep deep space mission where we explore the depths of noumena in crazy space suits.

The main point we are actually stuck on is whether metaphysical evidence (I assume this is synonymous with logical reasoning?) is premised on assumptions or some statement of truth. You claim the latter, but haven't explained how they can be true or given an example of some true premises. I can't actually think how they could be true, as "truth" is a philosophical concept, isn't it? I can't see how a philosophical concept can relate in anyway to something that we can't even touch/hear/see/measure. Indeed, there's probably philosophical stances that claim that there is no reality at all. So we can't even be sure if there is such a thing as reality.

Another point of contention is as you state above. Even if you could convince me that logical reasoning can be based on some truths about underlying reality, then we move to the concept of probability. I don't see how you can get probability without knowing the extent of the set that you are comparing against. In fact, it's probably reasonable to say that the set of possible realities is infinite. In that case, probability is meaningless, I would imagine.

Following on from that idea of infinite possible realities, is another point of contention. You claim that by eliminating a logically nonsense metaphysical position, that tells us something that reality can't be. If we ignore the bit about assumptions and truths above, then this is virtually a useless bit of "evidence". I'm not entirely sure on this, but I'd suspect that infinity minus 1 is still infinity. That is, before your "evidence" there were an infinite number of possible realities. And after your "evidence" there are still an infinite number of possible realities. If this is the case, then we haven't actually learnt anything of value at all about reality.

I've written the above as a kind of summing up of the argument. I'm not particularly interested in continuing the debate, as it will just degenerate into the same as before, which you throwing accusations around about lying and misrepresentation and arguably misrepresenting my positions. I'm not really interested in that. I've got better things to do with my time.

[Mr.Samsa]

As a show of good faith, I'll start it off: your main problem with claims about reality is that you don't think we can "access" reality so we can't say anything about it. Perhaps the bit you're getting stuck on is that we're only developing coherent and plausible views of what reality could be, and we weigh the evidence for and against various views. If it helps, think of it more as attempting to rationally justify claims about reality rather than some kind of deep deep space mission where we explore the depths of noumena in crazy space suits.

The main point we are actually stuck on is whether metaphysical evidence (I assume this is synonymous with logical reasoning?)

Yes, it's a field of logical reasoning, like ethics or maths.

is premised on assumptions or some statement of truth. You claim the latter, but haven't explained how they can be true or given an example of some true premises. I can't actually think how they could be true, as "truth" is a philosophical concept, isn't it? I can't see how a philosophical concept can relate in anyway to something that we can't even touch/hear/see/measure. Indeed, there's probably philosophical stances that claim that there is no reality at all. So we can't even be sure if there is such a thing as reality.

Why can't philosophical concepts be "true"? If any kinds of premises can achieve "truth", I would have thought they'd be premises in fields of logic and maths.

Another point of contention is as you state above. Even if you could convince me that logical reasoning can be based on some truths about underlying reality, then we move to the concept of probability. I don't see how you can get probability without knowing the extent of the set that you are comparing against. In fact, it's probably reasonable to say that the set of possible realities is infinite. In that case, probability is meaningless, I would imagine.

But surely you accept that we can show some theories of reality are more probable than others? Or, if you prefer, we can show that some theories of reality are more reasonable to believe/accept than others.

Following on from that idea of infinite possible realities, is another point of contention. You claim that by eliminating a logically nonsense metaphysical position, that tells us something that reality can't be. If we ignore the bit about assumptions and truths above, then this is virtually a useless bit of "evidence". I'm not entirely sure on this, but I'd suspect that infinity minus 1 is still infinity. That is, before your "evidence" there were an infinite number of possible realities. And after your "evidence" there are still an infinite number of possible realities. If this is the case, then we haven't actually learnt anything of value at all about reality.

We have learnt something though. You can argue that the information is trivial or not that useful but you can't deny that it's there. If I had very limited information but I somehow deduced that adult elephants aren't smaller than a metre then I'd know something about elephants (namely that they are taller than at least a metre). How useful this information is is another matter but then the "usefulness" depends entirely on what we are trying to claim.

To put it into a real world situation, suppose that a politician or world leader is arguing that his view of the world involves the notion of a soul that can go to hell for engaging in sins, and they believed that homosexuality was a sin so they want to make it illegal. If we were able to demonstrate that substance dualism was logically impossible (for example by providing a proof of an impossibility of an immaterial entity interacting with the material) then knowing what reality can't be (i.e. one that involves souls) would be hugely useful.

I've written the above as a kind of summing up of the argument. I'm not particularly interested in continuing the debate, as it will just degenerate into the same as before, which you throwing accusations around about lying and misrepresentation and arguably misrepresenting my positions. I'm not really interested in that. I've got better things to do with my time.

To be clear, you started the accusations of lying and misrepresentations. I generally let shit like that slide and assume incompetence rather than malice but then you started talking shit about me having a "reputation" for that (yeah, if you want to side with people like Weaver, Metatron, and Kenny...) and I take a tit for tat approach to discussions. If I'm treated with respect and charity, then I respond in kind. I'm not going to act like a schmuck and be polite to someone who is calling me a liar, a troll, and resembling Seth. Fuck that.

[pErvinalia]

I'd be surprised if I started it, but if I did, perhaps I was just sneaking in a pre-emptive strike.

[Mr.Samsa]

I'd be surprised if I started it, but if I did, perhaps I was just sneaking in a pre-emptive strike.

Not sure why you'd be surprised, you started it here when you claimed that I had misrepresented you by making it seem like you had said empiricism IS a valid method for investigation rather than it COULD be a valid method. When I quoted myself in that comment stream as saying that you were claiming it COULD (and never "IS"), you said that you didn't have the time to trawl through to figure out why you accused me of misrepresentation.

You'll also note that mostly (if not the only time) I accused you of misrepresentation was directly as a response to you accusing me of misrepresentation (because when you say I've misrepresented you they usually were cases of you misrepresenting me, like with the example mentioned above).

Like I say, I don't accuse people of misrepresentation when I don't need to assume malice, so I'm not sure how a "preemptive strike" would make sense. I have discussions with people with the hopes of learning something new and changing my position if need be (and god knows I've changed my positions on various topics radically after discussions on forums like this and RatSkep after being shown to be wrong!), meaning that I'm not going to intentionally go out of my way to fuck up a good discussion that I could have otherwise found interesting and useful. But as mentioned, if someone's an asshole to me then I'm not going to lick their balls and beg them to be nice to me.

[pErvinalia]

Eta: actually, just looking at it, you proved my point with your own words:

You argued that empiricism could be a valid way of telling us things about reality, I explained exactly how and why it wasn't.

"..how and why it wasn't".

I never said it was.

Hello!

[Mr.Samsa]

Eta: actually, just looking at it, you proved my point with your own words:

You argued that empiricism could be a valid way of telling us things about reality, I explained exactly how and why it wasn't.

"..how and why it wasn't".

I never said it was.

Hello!

I explained how and why it wasn't [the case that it could be a valid method]. It's literally written right there in the sentence. Could. I made it big.

[pErvinalia]

Here we go.

Fuck off with your torturous mangling of the English language. If what you are claiming is the case, then why didn't you write in it correct English like everyone else would have?? The correct way of writing what you claim you are saying is: I explained exactly how and why it couldn't.

But you didn't write that. You wrote that it WASN'T. That implies that I said that it WAS. I never said or implied that it WAS a valid way of telling us about reality. I said that it COULD POTENTIALLY be a valid method. The reason it could be is that we have no way of knowing one way or the other. Therefore we have to accept that it, like Harry Potter stories, COULD POTENTIALLY be a valid method. And don't give me the same rebuttal to this last point as you have before, because I've already addressed it most recently and you haven't responded to it.

ETA: your mental gymnastics are fucking funny. Your claim as to what you said doesn't even make sense:

"I explained how and why it wasn't [the case that it could be a valid method]". In the original sentence where you wrote "wasn't" you preceded that sentence with a direct description, NOT a "case" category. This is too much. Go away. You're barely even distinguishable from Strontium Dog now.

[Mr.Samsa]

Here we go.

Fuck off with your torturous mangling of the English language. If what you are claiming is the case, then why didn't you write in it correct English like everyone else would have?? The correct way of writing what you claim you are saying is: I explained exactly how and why it couldn't.

But you didn't write that. You wrote that it WASN'T. That implies that I said that it WAS. I never said or implied that it WAS a valid way of telling us about reality. I said that it COULD POTENTIALLY be a valid method. The reason it could be is that we have no way of knowing one way or the other. Therefore we have to accept that it, like Harry Potter stories, COULD POTENTIALLY be a valid method. And don't give me the same rebuttal to this last point as you have before, because I've already addressed it most recently and you haven't responded to it.

I literally said that you claimed that it could be. How much clearer can that be? You claimed that it could be a valid method and I described your position as that it could be a valid method. I then explained why it wasn't a valid method.

This is getting silly now. I literally used the same words as you. For all you know I could have copied and pasted what you said. And still you take issue with it based on some insane mangling of semantics? Jesus christ.

[pErvinalia]

You didn't literally use the same words as me, as I just explained. You used the word "WASN'T". That implies that I said it WAS. That's an absolute falsehood. And no, it isn't getting silly just now. You got silly years ago when you apparently lost the ability to produce and parse decent English text.

And my assessment of your use of the word "wasn't" isn't mangling of semantics. It's standard parsing of the English language. If your above claim is what you genuinely meant to say, then I can accept that now. But you need to accept that it was your shitty English that caused the confusion. As, without doubt, you won't accept that, you should stop boring me to death with your petty shit.

[Mr.Samsa]

I'm just going to leave this here because it conclusively settles the debate beyond the point of any contention:

You argued that empiricism could be a valid way of telling us things about reality, I explained exactly how and why it wasn't.

Unless you can magically go back in time and rewrite the post of mine to say the exact opposite of what it says, you are arguing for the sake of arguing. There is absolutely no way you are right here and I'm not going to waste my time any further on this nonsense.

Accept it, don't accept it, I don't care but at the very least take a good hard look at the situation again with a more objective eye. I get it, I really do. When you make big claims and act like a smug asshole because you think you're right it can be hard to admit fault when someone corrects you. I did the same thing when you pointed out my fuckup with the timestamps. Do yourself the favour and stop trying to save face, you're only digging yourself in a deeper hole.

[pErvinalia]

And I'm just going to leave this here because it shows how you either produced fucked English, or you were indeed misrepresenting me. Either way, it doesn't look good for you.

You didn't literally use the same words as me, as I just explained. You used the word "WASN'T". That implies that I said it WAS. That's an absolute falsehood. And no, it isn't getting silly just now. You got silly years ago when you apparently lost the ability to produce and parse decent English text.

And my assessment of your use of the word "wasn't" isn't mangling of semantics. It's standard parsing of the English language. If your above claim is what you genuinely meant to say, then I can accept that now. But you need to accept that it was your shitty English that caused the confusion. As, without doubt, you won't accept that, you should stop boring me to death with your petty shit.

And I rescind that offer to accept you meant to say "I explained exactly how and why it couldn't be". I really don't see how someone with your education could make such a basic mistake as that. I suspect fairly strongly that you were misrepresenting me. As I said, you've got a long history of misrepresentation. It wouldn't be in the slightest out of character.

[Mr.Samsa]

I see you've taken the option of digging a hole and making a bigger fool of yourself. That's cool, given how poorly you understand English it's not surprising that you are so obsessive about the idea that people are misrepresenting you.

EDIT: But seriously Rev, you're honestly losing it. I don't know if you're stressed at the moment, haven't taken your meds, or just need a rest or something, but you've gone a little bit insane. Take a breather, stay away from the internet for a bit and come back when your head clears. The words on the page that you keep quoting are directly and unambiguously contradicting you. You are pointing at a blue pen and demanding that I agree it's red. All jokes and ribbing aside, sort yourself out and take care of yourself.

[pErvinalia]

And you still haven't explained why you didn't write it the way 99 out of 100 educated people would have written it. That is, the SIMPLEST AND LEAST CONVOLUTED WAY. That is "I explained how and why it couldn't be". Remember how you keep bringing up parsimony? As I've said multiple times to you know, you need to apply it to your own reality.

[pErvinalia]

I see you've taken the option of digging a hole and making a bigger fool of yourself. That's cool, given how poorly you understand English it's not surprising that you are so obsessive about the idea that people are misrepresenting you.

This is why you get rubbished so much. This limp wristed passive-aggressive shit. I've explained why the straighforward reading of what you wrote doesn't gel with what you claim you were trying to say. I've asked you a question as to why you didn't write it the correct and most simple way. You ignored that. Samsa, you are in no position to lecture on who's making a fool of themselves. You are just doing your old trick of proclaiming that you are right and everyone else is wrong, simply because you say so. That's laughable stuff.

[Mr.Samsa]

And you still haven't explained why you didn't write it the way 99 out of 100 educated people would have written it. That is, the SIMPLEST AND LEAST CONVOLUTED WAY. That is "I explained how and why it couldn't be". Remember how you keep bringing up parsimony? As I've said multiple times to you know, you need to apply it to your own reality.

There's nothing convoluted, it gets the same meaning across. I explained how and why empiricism wasn't/isn't a valid method for understanding reality. If it isn't a valid method then, as it relates to your position, that means it couldn't be.

Your position was that it could be a valid position. The only way to disprove your statement is to show that it couldn't be - i.e. that it isn't a valid method at all. That's normal English.

I see you've taken the option of digging a hole and making a bigger fool of yourself. That's cool, given how poorly you understand English it's not surprising that you are so obsessive about the idea that people are misrepresenting you.

This is why you get rubbished so much. This limp wristed passive-aggressive shit.

And this is exactly why everybody calls you a troll and why you got banned from RatSkep.

I've explained why the straighforward reading of what you wrote doesn't gel with what you claim you were trying to say. I've asked you a question as to why you didn't write it the correct and most simple way. You ignored that. Samsa, you are in no position to lecture on who's making a fool of themselves. You are just doing your old trick of proclaiming that you are right and everyone else is wrong, simply because you say so. That's laughable stuff.

You've explained that the English language isn't good enough for you and you want to rewrite the whole thing so that words mean the opposite of what they are. You have got to be trolling at this point or a bigger moron than I thought.