Why cannot the future be random? (or: invalidating axioms?)

[Iudicious]

So why do you believe in science? (I assume you’ll say “because it works”, but how do you know that it works?)

 

Empirically, it does work. There’s nothing in science where you cannot, through some means, point to how the theory or idea relates to reality and what it does. Even the most abstract theories exist because of some real world phenomena.

 

But that’s not really why I believe in science. I believe in science because I have no choice but to believe in it. The scientific method formalizes our only means of proving anything about reality from the evidence of reality - i.e. it formalizes induction. If I don’t believe in it, then I can’t really believe in anything. If I don’t believe in induction, then how can I have a belief in anything? Believing something requires evidence, and if I don’t believe in evidence… well, nothing can help me then.

 

Scientific claims are based on one’s understanding of reality. One’s understanding of reality is philosophy. By philosophy, I don’t mean simply mean random ideas, but philosophy as a field of thought and deeper than mere opinion on life. That makes the scientific method a philosophical belief which scientific contentions are based on. Sometimes bad science is simply bad observations. Other times, bad science is undermining the scientific method or undermining one’s basic observations.

 

I would agree that the scientific method is derived from philosophy. The only route to science is through philosophy, whether implicitly or explicitly. But that does not mean that philosophy gets a say in the evidence of reality. If a scientific theory doesn’t jive with your philosophy and you can’t find a scientific reason for why that theory is wrong, then your philosophy is wrong. Philosophy gave us induction, and from induction, science. Philosophy did not give us reality, and it cannot take it away. If the evidence of science disagrees with your philosophy, your philosophy has nothing to stand on. If a scientific theory is wrong, there’s a scientific reason why.

[Marc_K]

If the evidence of science disagrees with your philosophy, your philosophy has nothing to stand on. If a scientific theory is wrong, there’s a scientific reason why.

Here is an article from the past week essentially saying that some scientists have evidence that free will is an illusion, that free will doesn’t exist.

Do you think that such a thing could ever be proven?

 

Let us say that some “scientists” do “prove” that free will is an illusion. Should we take them seriously? Why or why not?

[Peter_Morris]

Right! I forgot! Science and reality have to obey Objectivist philosophy, otherwise we just offhandedly dismiss the both of them as having a severe case of bad philosophy.

 

 

I don’t actually know anything about physics, but I tend to trust the statements of physicists over the statements of philosophers when it comes to physics. It itches me the wrong way that you’d suggest that physics is “corrupted by bad philosophy.” Physics is corrupted by the choice to use the evidence of reality. Sorry if it doesn’t fall in line with what your philosophy would have you believe. 

Oh yes, science is allowed to make logical fallacies and contradict basic philosophical facts of reality since it doesn’t need to conform to anything as unreal and frivilous as philosophy because science is all about evidence not thinking.

[Nicky]

Empirically, it does work.

Why is empirical evidence valid?

But that’s not really why I believe in science. I believe in science because I have no choice but to believe in it.

Is that a rejection of free will, or are you just using imprecise language when you claim to have “no choice”?

The scientific method formalizes our only means of proving anything about reality from the evidence of reality - i.e. it formalizes induction. If I don’t believe in it, then I can’t really believe in anything. If I don’t believe in induction, then how can I have a belief in anything? Believing something requires evidence, and if I don’t believe in evidence… well, nothing can help me then.

That’s your personal philosophy (very similar to some of Ayn Rand’s philosophy, though not as eloquently worded), and it’s just one particular philosophy among many. Not even the most established one. What makes it objectively right?

If I don’t believe in induction, then how can I have a belief in anything?

There are many ways, as evidenced by all the people who do believe in things that don’t rely on induction. If you want the specifics, ask a priest, he will tell you exactly how to go about it.

[Eiuol]

I would agree that the scientific method is derived from philosophy. The only route to science is through philosophy, whether implicitly or explicitly. But that does not mean that philosophy gets a say in the evidence of reality.

Then I think the only disagreement you have is over word choice. The other people asking you questions seem to think you’re denying philosophy is important to science. You’re not doing that, though. I think science and philosophy are inseparable for the most part making all scientific claims to some extent philosophical. But it’s important to remember that Objectivism approaches all knowledge, even philosophy, in a scientific way, i.e. with observation, induction, and logic as all valid methods. Think of it this way. To call a scientist a bad philosopher is to just say the scientist undermines his or her ability to do science in the first place. That’s why it is considered a philosophical error rather than strictly a scientific one.

[Plasmatic]

Iudicious said:

I would agree that the scientific method is derived from philosophy. The only route to science is through philosophy, whether implicitly or explicitly. But that does not mean that philosophy gets a say in the evidence of reality.

It is exactly philosophy that “formalizes induction” and tells you what evidence is! When a physicist says particles “pop in and out of existence” I don’t need to know any physics to laugh at him in ridicule. Whats more is the fact that the smart special science practitioners actually spend alot of time debating the philosophical merits of the popular theories that the rest of their peers either take for granted or take as only pragmatic metaphors that describe the appearances.

You are confessing your second handedness to men who largely have no idea what is actually involved in their everyday use of cognition and language.

Louie said:

Then I think the only disagreement you have is over word choice

Or he’s just embracing contradiction…

[softwareNerd]

I would agree that the scientific method is derived from philosophy.

“Derived from” gives the impression that philosophy is a somewhat independent science that came up with ideas about reality and rationality, that then lead to the scientific method. Perhaps you do not mean it that way, and perhaps its nit-picking, but “derived from” does have that connotation.

 

Most learning and integration happens in the other direction: science comes up with the nuts and bolts approaches that constitute the “scientific method” without having a name for it; then, people (like Bacon) who focus on the methodology of science formalize the method by generalizing across attempts by various scientists; finally, philosophy takes the input from natural science, as well as inputs from history and the humanities, and formalizes more general and widely-applicable formulations (e.g. about the efficacy of reason, or the nature of causation). 

[Plasmatic]

It worth pointing out that Bacon saw himself as a “natural philosopher”…

[Iudicious]

Here is an article from the past week essentially saying that some scientists have evidence that free will is an illusion, that free will doesn’t exist.

Do you think that such a thing could ever be proven?

 

Let us say that some “scientists” do “prove” that free will is an illusion. Should we take them seriously? Why or why not?

 

Science journalism is bad. 

Now, given that a scientist in a field comes to me to say that he has proof that free will is an illusion. On both a philosophical and scientific level, I’d take him seriously - at least for a moment. Why? Because I’m not infallible. I’ve proved to myself that free will exists - but I am not infallible. If someone provides conclusive empirical evidence that free will does not exist - and I mean CONCLUSIVE, such that there is no scientific way of interpreting it otherwise - I’d have to seriously reconsider my philosophy, because my philosophy now disagrees with the evidence of reality. 

 

Do I think that’s likely to happen? Not really. But the principle is important here: if the evidence of reality starts to pile up that something about my philosophy is wrong, I’m going to have a problem. Either I’m insane, or my philosophy is wrong. You need to understand what I actually said about science: science is a formalized process of induction. That means that it’s entirely based on the evidence of reality. Nothing more, nothing less. If science says that some part of my philosophy is wrong, by all rights the philosophy that I hold should agree - because my philosophy holds that reality is the final arbiter in all things. Not what I want to believe. Not what I wish was true. Reality. Do you disagree with this assessment? If you do not consult reality as the final arbiter in all things… who do you consult? God?

 

 

I’m bad at this quoting thing, so these next few responses are with regards to Nicky:

 

 

 

Is that a rejection of free will, or are you just using imprecise language when you claim to have “no choice”?

 

I’m using precise language but leaving out what I figured to be a given. I have no choice but to believe in science, assuming that I believe in logic and reality. Science is formalized induction. If I don’t believe in science, than I don’t believe in induction. If I don’t believe in induction… well then, what can I believe in?

 

 

 

Why is empirical evidence valid?

 

To me, I treat empirical evidence as valid because that is my philosophy. Philosophically, empirical evidence is valid because there is no other kind of evidence with regards to reality. I can deduce a few things without any regards to reality (there is something which exists, I am a thing which exists, a thing is a thing, et cetera) but anything else requires consulting with reality, and empirical evidence is the only means by which to do that. 

 

I am confident that no science will ever disprove free will, as a result of what I have deduced logically. But if the empirical evidence of reality firmly, unquestionably, tells me that I do not have free will, I must at least re-examine what I have deduced. Because arriving at such evidence means one of two things: either I’ve gone insane and cannot reliably induce anything from reality anymore, or I made an error in my deductions.

 

 

 

There are many ways, as evidenced by all the people who do believe in things that don’t rely on induction. If you want the specifics, ask a priest, he will tell you exactly how to go about it. 

 

It seems here you agree with me. Yes, I can believe something without ever relying on induction or consulting reality. But I can’t do so reliably. I can’t have any good reason for doing so. I can’t truly, rationally, know anything if I base my beliefs on something other than reality.

 

 

 

That’s your personal philosophy (very similar to some of Ayn Rand’s philosophy, though not as eloquently worded), and it’s just one particular philosophy among many. Not even the most established one. What makes it objectively right?

 

What makes what objectively right? Are you asking me what makes my philosophy that I must consult with reality (et cetera, et cetera) objectively right? I don’t know, you tell me. I’m not interested in explaining it because it seems to me that, based on your responses, it should be blatantly clear to you. How do you suppose that I should discern what is objectively right if I can’t believe that consulting reality is objectively right? What do you suppose I should consult instead? Should I give up induction altogether, perhaps?

 

 

 

Then I think the only disagreement you have is over word choice. The other people asking you questions seem to think you’re denying philosophy is important to science. You’re not doing that, though. I think science and philosophy are inseparable for the most part making all scientific claims to some extent philosophical. But it’s important to remember that Objectivism approaches all knowledge, even philosophy, in a scientific way, i.e. with observation, induction, and logic as all valid methods. Think of it this way. To call a scientist a bad philosopher is to just say the scientist undermines his or her ability to do science in the first place. That’s why it is considered a philosophical error rather than strictly a scientific one.

 

I think you’re mostly spot on with your interpretation.

 

I would say that, at best, science is an extension of philosophy. No objective examination of reality can extend from anywhere but philosophy, which necessarily includes science. 

 

My issue is that it’s entirely possible to arrive at science with a philosophy different from Objectivism. Induction does not exist just in Objectivism. A person can have a completely different set of views from me or you, and still be a fantastic scientist, better even than you or I could ever be perhaps. So criticizing them for “bad philosophy” misses the point entirely. You can’t throw out their scientific evidence on account of it disagreeing with your philosophy. Can philosophy perhaps flavor our views of the evidence? Sure. But in the end, reality is the final arbiter of rightness, and if your philosophy ends up disagreeing with reality… well, the old cliche works here: if you believe that you can fly, go jump off a building and see if gravity agrees. Science is the only means that I have of objectively collecting and understanding the evidence of reality through induction. If it tells me that my philosophy is wrong… perhaps I need to take at least a few minutes to examine my philosophy.

[dream_weaver]

Now, given that a scientist in a field comes to me to say that he has proof that free will is an illusion. On both a philosophical and scientific level, I’d take him seriously - at least for a moment. Why? Because I’m not infallible. I’ve proved to myself that free will exists - but I am not infallible. If someone provides conclusive empirical evidence that free will does not exist - and I mean CONCLUSIVE, such that there is no scientific way of interpreting it otherwise - I’d have to seriously reconsider my philosophy, because my philosophy now disagrees with the evidence of reality. 

If you understand that the concept of “proof” presupposes free will, then there is no need to take any such claim seriously, not even for a moment. Even the concept of  “infallibility” presupposes free will. Free will is axiomatic, it can only be validated, not proven. It has to be relied upon, even in an attempt to deny it. The very act of disagreement on such a point, presuppose that the individuals involved in such a dispute can be persuaded to volitionally alter their point of view.

[Iudicious]

If you understand that the concept of “proof” presupposes free will, then there is no need to take any such claim seriously, not even for a moment. Even the concept of  “infallibility” presupposes free will. Free will is axiomatic, it can only be validated, not proven. It has to be relied upon, even in an attempt to deny it. The very act of disagreement on such a point, presuppose that the individuals involved in such a dispute can be persuaded to volitionally alter their point of view.

 

Right, and that’s something that you arrived at through a deductive line of reasoning. You were not born with that knowledge in your head. You do not know it inherently. No God has given that knowledge to you through divine will. You deduced that axiom by understanding what it means and the context it fits into. 

 

The point I was making is that, if the evidence of reality contradicted that conclusion, I would have to at least consider the possibility that my deduction was wrong, that my deductive abilities were off.

 

I’m not saying that one cannot arrive at an intuition about reality through philosophy. I’m not saying that philosophy cannot guide your reasoning. What I am saying is that science is formalized induction, that its evidence and its theories come from reality. ASSUMING that we had incontrovertible evidence of free will not existing - which it is highly questionable whether such a thing could exist - one would be forced to reconsider one’s deductive abilities, or else assume that reality is lying to you and you’ve actually gone insane and can’t discern what is and is not reality. These are your only two options. If the evidence is truly incontrovertible, then your perception of reality is off and your inductive abilities cannot be relied upon… or your deductive abilities were wrong. Unless you suppose a third sort of reasoning that could be involved here that is neither deductive nor inductive, I don’t see any other option.

 

 

Now, if I was personally given evidence that free will does not exist, I’d consider it highly suspect. In science, there’s almost nothing that can be said to be true with 100% certainty. Induction can always fail, and it’s impossible to prove that it hasn’t failed. With induction, unlike deduction, it’s only possible to prove that it’s astronomically unlikely for your conclusion to be wrong. Given a scenario where I was shown proof that free will doesn’t exist obtained through science, I’d likely spend the rest of my days trying to find counter evidence - because reality can’t be wrong, but the deductive line of reasoning leading me to believe in free will is pretty solid, so my natural assumption would be that either the evidence was obtained falsely or that there must be some way to find a new conclusion. But unless it was immediately obvious that one of those two things had happened, I wouldn’t simply say “oh that’s bad philosophy” and shrug it off. 

[Plasmatic]

First, let me say that if your initial posts were of this kind I would have taken the time to respond in detail…

 

ludicious said:

 

 

What I am saying is that science is formalized induction, that its evidence and its theories come from reality.

 

The special sciences are applying what the science of philosophy informs them. Induction and deduction are involved in reasoning on _ any _ type of conclusion.

 

ludicious said: 

 

 

You deduced that axiom by understanding what it means and the context it fits into. 

 

The point I was making is that, if the evidence of reality contradicted that conclusion, I would have to at least consider the possibility that my deduction was wrong, that my deductive abilities were off.

 

 

The axioms aren’t deduced and they fit into ALL contexts, that’s what it means to be axiomatic. Understanding this philosophical fact of reality is what enables one to reject the possibility of the axioms being wrong with _ certainty _, precisely because one knows what the speaker means!

 

If you understood how to determine what evidence and proof and possibility mean, then you would understand that any person, special science or otherwise, who claims to reject the facts that they presuppose is irrevocably speaking contradiction.  

 

The only difference between general truths and specialized truths is the accessibility of the facts that give rise to them. Not induction here, deduction over there, facts here fantasy/intuition there. Both philosophers and physicist can err and when they do it is always a _ epistemological _ error, a failure to apply the right method of attaining knowledge! 

 

I recommend you discover what philosophy means because until you do you will be contradicting yourself and will entertain the contradictions of others…

 

 

ludicious said:

 

 

Now, if I was personally given evidence that free will does not exist, I’d consider it highly suspect. In science, there’s almost nothing that can be said to be true with 100% certainty.

 

Is bad philosophy and this view of science is an _ epistemological _ error…

[Iudicious]

 

 

First, let me say that if your initial posts were of this kind I would have taken the time to respond in detail…

 

Sorry, but what you mean to say is “if your initial posts made you seem more amenable to my philosophy, I would have taken the time to respond in detail.” Say what you mean.

 

Unlike any of the other people who responded to me, your first responses said absolutely nothing worth even considering, other than just “you’re wrong”. Which is why I didn’t consider them.

 

 

 

The special sciences are applying what the science of philosophy informs them. Induction and deduction are involved in reasoning on _ any _ type of conclusion.

I agree, because that’s another way of saying what I already said.

 

 

 

 

The axioms aren’t deduced and they fit into  ALL  contexts, that’s what it  means  to be axiomatic. 

 

I understand that axioms aren’t provable  and that any proof would necessarily  imply them. Here’s the thing: you are not born inherently knowing about any axiom. Yes, an axiom is implied by knowing anything - but this is a fact that has to be deduced from working with the facts of reality. It is not something anyone knows inherently, which means some process of thought must lead to it. Which leads back to what I was already saying before:

 

If an axiom is solidly, incontrovertibly, contradicted by the evidence of reality, you have only two recourses: either admit that your induction process is flawed and cannot be relied on, or admit that your deduction of the axiom/the thought process leading you to the axiom is wrong.

 

There are no other options here.

 

 

 

If you understood how to determine what evidence and proof and possibility  mean,  then you would understand that any person, special science or otherwise, who claims to reject the facts that they presuppose is irrevocably speaking  contradiction.  

 

Again with you talking about what I do or do not understand. Don’t assume to know what I do or do not know. It’s rude, and it makes you seem like an ass.

 

What you just said is precisely what led me to my conclusion. A contradiction of free will provided by incontrovertible evidence from reality would imply a contradiction. That contradiction can lie in one of two places: if there is truly no way around the evidence, no way to reject it otherwise, then you must assume that either your ability to induce anything from reality is flawed, hence producing the contradiction by giving you false evidence from reality, or that your original deduction of the axioms is wrong. 

 

I’m saying that I would at least consider the facts of reality simply because either one of those two things is a pretty big leap. Seeing as we’re dealing with science here, and not everyone has to be an Objectivist to be a scientist, it’s not exactly rational to approach this from a purely philosophical standpoint when the scientific evidence is hardly incontrovertible, as is the original case presented to me. If the evidence is not incontrovertible, there’s no reason it can’t be rejected from a scientific viewpoint - i.e. a viewpoint not based on deductive processes that most of the world disagrees with Objectivism on. 

 

If you want to offhandedly reject scientific evidence on a philosophical basis, go ahead.

 

Just don’t be upset when the Christians continue offhandedly rejecting scientific theories, like evolution, because it contradicts their philosophy.

 

Pragmatically, the way that I propose we handle such evidence works a whole lot better.

 

 

 

I recommend you discover what philosophy  means  because until you do you will be  contradicting  yourself and will entertain the contradictions of others…

 

I recommend you stop condescendingly assuming what I do or do not know.

 

 

 

Is bad philosophy and this view of science is an _ epistemological _ error…

 

Once again saying something not worth considering. Do you have something more to say about this, or are you just going to say “you’re wrong, epistemologically” and leave it at that?

 

I’ll humor you anyways. In science, we don’t treat something as 100% certain when based off of evidence of reality. The reason for this is that when you induce a fact, you do so using a limited amount of evidence. The full set of all knowledge of the universe is simply not available to you. But if something is true in enough cases, you can induce that it is a general truth. That does not mean that something can’t come along later that contradicts it. You can work under the assumption that solidly backed theories are indeed true - but if something comes along that really, truly contradicts those theories, they are not off the table for reconsideration. The evidence just needs to be very strong before their wrongness would be considered.

[Nicky]

What makes what objectively right? Are you asking me what makes my philosophy that I must consult with reality (et cetera, et cetera) objectively right? I don’t know, you tell me. I’m not interested in explaining it because it seems to me that, based on your responses, it should be blatantly clear to you.

Yeah, I think the reason you won’t explain it is because you can’t. I also think your posts are a confused mess.

[Iudicious]

Yeah, I think the reason you won’t explain it is because you can’t. I also think your posts are a confused mess.

 

I’m not seeing where your disagreement with what I said was. The questions I asked were not rhetorical. What specifically were you asking me?

 

I wasn’t interested in explaining why I feel it necessary to consult reality for proof because I’ve never met an Objectivist (and very few people besides Objectivists, for that matter) who believed otherwise. There was a lot to write besides that, and seeing as your question was unclear in the first place, I didn’t want to assume that you were asking me why reality is the final arbiter of rightness and respond to that when it could very well have been a waste of time. 

 

I’m also not seeing how my posts are a confused mess. I organize them by quoting something that I feel should be responded to, and then after the quote I write my response. I’ve tried to explain myself as clearly as possible. What would you like for me to clarify or make less confusing? 

 

Edit: That was also not the only point from your post I addressed. Again, what is confusing about my posts, making it untenable for you to read through them and respond to them with anything other than what you have offered so far? 

[dream_weaver]

Right, and that’s something that you arrived at through a deductive line of reasoning. You were not born with that knowledge in your head. You do not know it inherently. No God has given that knowledge to you through divine will. You deduced that axiom by understanding what it means and the context it fits into. 

 

The point I was making is that, if the evidence of reality contradicted that conclusion, I would have to at least consider the possibility that my deduction was wrong, that my deductive abilities were off. 

Inference consists of two modes: induction and deduction. If you induce your conclusions in accordance with the evidence of reality, where is the contradictory evidence to arise from?

[Plasmatic]

ludicious said:

Sorry, but what you mean to say is “if your initial posts made you seem more amenable to my philosophy, I would have taken the time to respond in detail.” Say what you mean.

Unlike any of the other people who responded to me, your first responses said absolutely nothing worth even considering, other than just “you’re wrong”. Which is why I didn’t consider them.

No I said what I meant. I meant to not spend much time elaborating on your snarky comments that ignored the fact that you are in a forum dedicated to the philosophy I advocate. I did this precisely because you initiated this behavior on Oist turf and then just declared your contradictory nonsense in condescension yourself. if you had made any semblance of an attempt to respect that your in a forum that has Oist philosophy as the context I would have taken the time to dissect your errors. What’s more is that this isn’t the first time you’ve done this in this forum.

“if your initial posts made you seem more amenable to” the context of this forum you would have had that respect returned to you.

ludicious said:

I agree, because that’s another way of saying what I already said.

If you actually believe this than I’m not sure you can be helped. What I said means that the special sciences are subject to _philosophica_l veto when they make philosophical errors. (Like claiming that its possible for there to be “incontrovertible evidence” that an axiomatic fact is wrong) Whats more is that you claimed the special sciences “formalize induction” but I just said that philosophy tells the special science what induction and evidence is…

ludicious said:

I understand that axioms aren’t provable and that any proof would necessarily imply them. Here’s the thing: you are not born inherently knowing about any axiom. Yes, an axiom is implied by knowing anything - but this is a fact that has to be deduced from working with the facts of reality. It is not something anyone knows inherently, which means some process of thought must lead to it. Which leads back to what I was already saying before :

What you said before included more statements like:

If an axiom is solidly, incontrovertibly, contradicted by the evidence of reality, you have only two recourses: either admit that your induction process is flawed and cannot be relied on, or admit that your deduction of the axiom/the thought process leading you to the axiom is wrong.

There are no other options here.

Which contradicts the claim that you “understand that axioms aren’t provable and that any proof would necessarily imply them.” because this would tell you that the the only option here is that the axioms are incontrovertible and you are contradicting yourself.

ludicious said:

Again with you talking about what I do or do not understand. Don’t assume to know what I do or do not know. It’s rude, and it makes you seem like an ass.

I understand that I have responded to what you said as evidence of what you think you know. What was rude was you coming in a forum dedicated to the philosophy I’m defending and making condescending snarky comments and then being surprised that you were deemed unworthy of more than a notice that you have no idea what your talking about. In particular because this forum presupposes that which you are denying.

ludicious said:

What you just said is precisely what led me to my conclusion. A contradiction of free will provided by incontrovertible evidence from reality would imply a contradiction. That contradiction can lie in one of two places: if there is truly no way around the evidence, no way to reject it otherwise, then you must assume that either your ability to induce anything from reality is flawed, hence producing the contradiction by giving you false evidence from reality, or that your original deduction of the axioms is wrong.

I’m saying that I would at least consider the facts of reality simply because either one of those two things is a pretty big leap.

More of the same contradictory error… What your missing is that you are arguing that this scenario:

:

Now, given that a scientist in a field comes to me to say that he has proof that free will is an illusion. On both a philosophical and scientific level, I’d take him seriously - at least for a moment. Why? Because I’m not infallible. I’ve proved to myself that free will exists - but I am not infallible. If someone provides conclusive empirical evidence that free will does not exist - and I mean CONCLUSIVE, such that there is no scientific way of interpreting it otherwise - I’d have to seriously reconsider my philosophy, because my philosophy now disagrees with the evidence of reality.

Is a possibility. Specifically that you think the axioms “could be wrong”, which contradicts the statement that you “understand that axioms aren’t provable and that any proof would necessarily imply them”

ludicious said:

I recommend you stop condescendingly assuming what I do or do not know.

I recommend you comprehend what you’ve actually said you “know” is not an assumption on my part!

ludicious said:

Once again saying something not worth considering. Do you have something more to say about this, or are you just going to say “you’re wrong, epistemologically” and leave it at that?

I’ve said much more than this and you actually claimed that you accept what I said that was more…Ill add something else. Understanding concept formation is a requirement to understand induction… Good luck rationalizing how that is not an epistemological endeavor. How many special scientist do you know who have a clue what concept formation involves?..

ludicious said:

I’ll humor you anyways. In science, we don’t treat something as 100% certain when based off of evidence of reality. The reason for this is that when you induce a fact, you do so using a limited amount of evidence. The full set of all knowledge of the universe is simply not available to you. But if something is true in enough cases, you can induce that it is a general truth. That does not mean that something can’t come along later that contradicts it. You can work under the assumption that solidly backed theories are indeed true - but if something comes along that really, truly contradicts those theories, they are not off the table for reconsideration. The evidence just needs to be very strong before their wrongness would be considered.

Humorous indeed. Given that you are arguing that the axioms are subject to this kind of possibility…The “the full set of all knowledge of the universe is simply not available to you” on any matter, philosophical or other wise and that’s why your philosophy-deduction vs “science” induction argument is nonsense.

Edit: whats more is that you are implicitly claiming that the axioms aren’t “based on the evidence of reality” because you think they are “deduced”. Do you claim that deduction then is the only “certain” kind of knowledge???

[DonAthos]

I believe that Plasmatic is correct in this sense:

Axioms are incontrovertible. If one discovers evidence (perhaps by a process which we may term “science”) which seems to contradict an axiom, then one has either done his science incorrectly, or he is misinterpreting his evidence.

I believe that ludicious is correct in this sense:

An individual may be mistaken in what he believes to be “axiomatic” or in how he applies such a belief. If one discovers evidence (perhaps by a process which we may term “science”) which seems to contradict that which he considers to be an axiom, then he must be willing to entertain the additional possibilities that he is mistaken in either his choice of “axiomatic belief” or in his application of the same.

Am I incorrect on any point here?

[Plasmatic]

Your correct that Im correct…

What your forgetting is that ludicious claims to accept that proof pressuposses the axioms. If he understood that, the statement that its possible they are wrong would be something he could be certain was impossible. Once you understand the axioms you can never rationally entertain the idea that they arent inevitable-inescapable. This is central to the Oist philosophy.

[Eiuol]

What I said means that the special sciences are subject to _philosophica_l veto when they make philosophical errors. .

I think you are very wrong here. Consider sNerd’s post about philosophy being a lot of generalizations helped along by science. Iud already explained he agrees that science depends on some good philosophy, although there is disagreement over what is the exact nature of axioms. Philosophy doesn’t veto science, nor does science veto philosophy. They are symbiotic in the sense that science is observation of reality. Good philosophy is the same. If at some point science shows contradictions, either your philosophy must be updated, or you’re interpreting it wrong.

 

As I said, the charge of physics being infested with bad philosophy is about saying that it undermines itself. Why physics in particular? Because it is closely related to basic questions of existence. Don’t get ahead of yourself, the topic is about a philosophy question that looks to be based on bad science.