Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

SpookyKitty

Regulars
  • Posts

    510
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

Everything posted by SpookyKitty

  1. Unfortunately, mere evidence one way or the other counts for nothing in mathematics. There are many statements that were thought to be true until some absurdly large counterexample was discovered. For example, the conjecture that (n^29) + 14 and (n+1)^29 + 14 are relatively prime for all n, is true for all numbers less than 345253422116355058862366766874868910441560096980654656110408105446268691941239624255384457677726969174087561682040026593303628834116200365400
  2. What if I told you that programs can also write programs?
  3. Induction has to do with concept formation, and not all thinking is concept formation.
  4. Can you explain it better, then? Well, what do you mean by "thinking"?
  5. This isn't exactly true. The exact behavior of a program may not be known to a programmer prior to actually running the program. For example, programmers are capable of making chess AI's that are FAR better chess players than the programmers themselves.
  6. This is a non-sequitur. Deterministic systems such as computer programs actually can learn and modify their behavior in response to new data. Again, a non-sequitur. If the concept of "person" makes sense , then it is definitely possible to check whether a given group of particles satisfies the "person relation" or not.
  7. @Eiuol So, your only gripe with my previous example is that it fails the narrowness test?
  8. No. Unlike NM and GR, there is currently no known experiment or phenomenon which contradicts Speical Relativity or Quantum Mechanics. They are very likely both True.
  9. Because it's easier to calculate and the deviations from reality are small enough to not matter for those purposes?
  10. You're right. GR, stritctly speaking, isn't true either. But as far as theories of gravity go, it's the best we've got.
  11. I don't see what your point is. Modern physics does not include any sort of forces in the classical sense of the word.
  12. Can you give me a simple example of a justified belief that meets these criteria?
  13. Nor I, yours. But let me explain why they are false anyway. Newton's second law states that the net force F on a body will be related to its acceleration by F/m = a. This implies that a force could accelerate a body to a velocity higher than the speed of light. Which, according to special relativity is impossible. Newton's thrid law states that for every force exerted by a body A on body B along the line incident with their centers of mass there is an equal and opposite force along the same line toward A from B. The problem with this law is that it results in instantaneous action at a distance. It would allow faster than light communication between objects, which relativity forbids. The law of gravitation is false because there is no force of gravity. Eintein's tower gedankenexperiment (a good rundown of it is here: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/8940/how-can-gravitational-forces-influence-time) proves that all theories of gravitation based on forces are inconsistent with speical relativity. There is a lot wrong with this and it's hard to know where to begin. The equivalence principle states that frames of reference in uniform gravitational fields and those which are uniformly accelerating are indistinguishable. Newton's thrid law is not relevant here, nor is your equation m1aq=m2a2 even meaningful. You claimed that the inverse square law is "still the only way to measure the attraction produced by a mass...". First, it is not the only way. Gravity is analyzed using Einstein's field equations which make no mention of forces of any kind. And for that reason it isn't even the correct way. The current scientific status of Newtonian physics is that it is strictly speaking false, and its predictions are only approximately correct.
  14. Why don't you give me the exact conditions for justification? Otherwise we'll be arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
  15. Newton's second and third laws of motion and the law of gravitation are definitely false in relativity. This is because all three of these laws presuppose absolute simultaneity. Ummm... no? What Newton said he did not offer is a mechanical explanation of the force of gravity, not a hypothesis as to why gravity exists. General Relativity says that there is no force of gravity in the first place.
  16. JTB is from Plato, not Gettier. EDIT: Meno: Men. What do you mean by the word "right"? Soc. I will explain. If a man knew the way to Larisa, or anywhere else, and went to the place and led others thither, would he not be a right and good guide? Men. Certainly. Soc. And a person who had a right opinion about the way, but had never been and did not know, might be a good guide also, might he not? Men. Certainly. Soc. And while he has true opinion about that which the other knows, he will be just as good a guide if he thinks the truth, as he who knows the truth? Men. Exactly. Soc. Then true opinion is as good a guide to correct action as knowledge; and that was the point which we omitted in our speculation about the nature of virtue, when we said that knowledge only is the guide of right action; whereas there is also right opinion. Men. True. Soc. Then right opinion is not less useful than knowledge? Men. The difference, Socrates, is only that he who has knowledge will always be right; but he who has right opinion will sometimes be right, and sometimes not. Soc. What do you mean? Can he be wrong who has right opinion, so long as he has right opinion? Men. I admit the cogency of your argument, and therefore, Socrates, I wonder that knowledge should be preferred to right opinion-or why they should ever differ. Soc. And shall I explain this wonder to you? Men. Do tell me. Soc. You would not wonder if you had ever observed the images of Daedalus; but perhaps you have not got them in your country? Men. What have they to do with the question? Soc. Because they require to be fastened in order to keep them, and if they are not fastened they will play truant and run away. Men. Well. what of that? Soc. I mean to say that they are not very valuable possessions if they are at liberty, for they will walk off like runaway slaves; but when fastened, they are of great value, for they are really beautiful works of art. Now this is an illustration of the nature of true opinions: while they abide with us they are beautiful and fruitful, but they run away out of the human soul, and do not remain long, and therefore they are not of much value until they are fastened by the tie of the cause; and this fastening of them, friend Meno, is recollection, as you and I have agreed to call it. But when they are bound, in the first place, they have the nature of knowledge; and, in the second place, they are abiding. And this is why knowledge is more honourable and excellent than true opinion, because fastened by a chain. Men. What you are saying, Socrates, seems to be very like the truth. Soc. I too speak rather in ignorance; I only conjecture. And yet that knowledge differs from true opinion is no matter of conjecture with me. There are not many things which I profess to know, but this is most certainly one of them.
  17. The belief would be justified because the subject has good reasons for believing that the experimenters are telling the truth (suppose). And also because the subject's seeing a dog is evidence for the belief that the screen always shows a dog. I'm not sure how this relates to my argument, but I will answer the questions anyway. First, I am not at all saying that false beliefs can only be the result of either poor justifications or error of reasoning. One can have good justifications for false beliefs (although only if he lacks some piece of evidence that would lead him to adopt the true belief). I do not agree at all that poor justifications lead to necessarily false beliefs. Although, I think you meant to say that bad reasoning necessarily leads to false belief rather than that bad reasoning leads to necessarily false beliefs. Given that, no, bad reasoning can result in true beliefs. Take any yes/no question. You flip a coin to decide the answer and you will be right about 50% of the time.
  18. It most certainly does not continue to be true. It may continue to be a useful fiction, but it is anything but true. This sort of thing completely downplays the fact that Newtonian physics makes fundamental claims about the universe that are flat-out false, such as the existence of absolute simultaneity or a force of gravity.
  19. Pretty much this. I was going to respond to someone else about the "omniscient perspective" argument. The problem with this argument is that you can apply it to concepts of "truth" and "reality" just as well.
  20. Ok, I will give a positive argument for the truth condition. Imagine that some scientists are running an experiment. The subjects are told that in the test room there is a screen which always displays a certain picture. The subjects are given a list of possible pictures that the screen always shows. They are, one by one, to enter the room, mark which picture that they believe that the screen always shows, and then leave. The next subject then takes his turn, and so on. When Jones enters the room, he sees a picture of a dog. Thus, he has a justified belief that the screen always shows a dog. Presumably then, if knowledge is justified belief, then Jones knows that the screen always shows a dog. However, the experimenters have designed the screen so that it displays a random picture upon a subject's entering the room. A subject can have evidence for the belief that "the screen always shows x". But, there is simply no fact of the matter as to what the screen always shows. If knowledge is supposed to be about facts, then it is impossible for anyone to ever know what it is that the screen always shows even though they can have justified beliefs about what the screen always shows. The only things that people can actually have knowledge about are matters of fact. Every justified belief about matters of fact is therefore also either a justified false belief or a justified true belief. I think that it would be absurd to define knowledge as any sort of justified false belief. Therefore, knowledge must consist only of justified true beliefs.
  21. Not only are justified false beliefs possible, but they are also pervasive. Just look at the case of Newtonian physics. Your argument as whole is incoherent. If there are no justified false beliefs, then every justified belief is true. Hence, if knowledge is justified belief, then knowledge must also be justified true belief.
×
×
  • Create New...