Withholding belief v. denying knowledge - Page 12

pseudonous · 05-08-2008, 07:03 PM

Remster,

Quote:

I can't see why. I don't know enough about physics to give a concrete example, but consider whatever observations have led physicists to conclude that Newton was wrong. These observations could all be illusory or otherwise misleading. For example, the being might manipulate our sense organs or the laboratory environment, or he might tamper with our equipment so it produces inaccurate images or readings. Is that hard to imagine?

I understand the general idea your trying to convey about being mistaken or misled about what we are seeing. My problem is in trying to imagine the more specific example you gave of a world that appears to behave in an anti-Newtonian way but in actuality follows Newtonian laws.

I could write an entire essay on things I can imagine and how they don't make sense and still not fully exhaust all the possibilities, so I would rather leave it to you to give a coherent example of this hypothetical world. But just to give you some idea of why I can't imagine such a world, think about the many technologies, medicines and materials that people would be deceived into thinking are real.

For instance, using theory 1 we can make medicines for terminal diseases. According to theory 2 this would just be an illusion and the patient would die. How does this being give the illusion that the medicine worked? If the being steps in and saves the patients life, then taking the medicine actually did save the patient. Indirectly perhaps but the end effect is the same. On the other hand, if the patient actually dies but somehow the being can deceive the patient into think he is still alive how would this work? I can't think of any way to solve this that doesn't introduce more problems than the one it solves.

More complicated situations to explain away arise where people would die due to things not behaving as expected such as planes that would crash or bridges that would fall because the materials people thought they were using to make them didn't actually exist. Moreover, how do people drive over bridges that fell down long ago and now only exist in their heads or board planes that crashed long ago.

The whole idea starts to sound like the Matrix, to me at least. I gave it my best shot but perhaps I just lack the imagination. I don't see how the world could both contain a powerful being bent on deception, obey Newton's laws and appear as it does.

romansh · 05-08-2008, 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Remster

I'm failing to get the point across. The question I'm raising isn't whether sounds, arms, etc. continue to exist when they're not being perceived, i.e. whether they're objective. Rather, the question I'm raising is whether it's possible to have false beliefs about the subjective, i.e. things that exist only while you're experiencing them?

Still not sure exactly what you mean. Is pain or the absence a figment of my imagination? Or maybe ... The beer in the fridge only exists when I open the door and see it?
My obtuse answer regarding ... pain now ... needed a definition now. Was not feeling pain until I started to look for it. Happens when you start getting older.

Quote:

Either way, the main issue here is whether you know that x=x, and the alternative you've given to its being an assumption (which is where I want to end up) is that it's a definition. A definition of what? And is a definition the sort of thing that can be true or false? If so, how do you know whether it's true or false that x=x?

Rem ... I'm never going to use the word "know" whilst you are around ...

I have not found (for me) an exception to this observation. I fully aware your x may not be the same as mine. x=x is a tool I (we) use everyday. Like I said before I am happy with it being a bloody good assumption.

romansh · 05-08-2008, 09:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pseudonous

An rough example of two arguments with this relationship would be;

1. Objects in moving in a straight line continue to do so unless acted on by an external force.
2. The planets orbit around the sun.
3. Therefore a force is exerted on the planets.

1. God is the cause of all things.
2. Objects in moving in a straight line continue to do so unless acted on by an external force.
3. The planets orbit around the sun.
4. Therefore the god causes a force to be exerted on the planets.

I'm sure there is a better example but I am getting lazy.
What do think? Are there any flaws?

Nous
The whole problem (for me) is that reality points us away from a simplest solution. Newton had invent calculus just understand the laws of gravity. Although I like the end point of Occam's razor, I mistrust it. I somehow prefer Albert's "Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler."

pseudonous · 05-08-2008, 11:18 PM

Romansh

Quote:

Originally Posted by romansh

...Although I like the end point of Occam's razor, I mistrust it. I somehow prefer Albert's "Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler."

Yes, I think Albert's statement is better if only because it doesn't lend itself to overly systematized thought. Many people seem to want a "discovery machine". Though I was always under the impression that Occam never meant his idea to be used in a dogmatic way either.

It's just that both of them imply that in some sense simpler is better and Remster's question has got me thinking in what way or ways that might be the case. It is not so much that I expect to succeed in finding a strict rule as much as gain a better understanding. Well maybe a strict rule or two under very specific circumstances. I think there are situations were the simpler explanation is better, as well as, situations where the simpler explanation is weaker.

Remster · 05-11-2008, 04:19 PM

Rom

Quote:

Still not sure exactly what you mean.

Let me try a different example. I can always return to pain if it falls flat.

Tell me if you agree that the following experiences have something in common:

seeing a white vase in red light through clear lenses
seeing a white vase in white light through red lenses
seeing a red vase in white light through clear lenses

In all three cases, assume that the walls, ceiling and floor of the room you're in (and anything else in your visual field) are red.

Quote:

Like I said before I am happy with it being a bloody good assumption.

That's fine, as long as you acknowledge that theism can be a good assumption too (i.e. psychologically good).

Rem

PS I'm off for a week, so please don't think I'm ignoring you if you don't get a reply for a while.

Remster · 05-11-2008, 04:41 PM

Pseudonous

Are you informing me that a great deal of technology depends on the truth of some anti-Newtonian theory? If so, I'd like to change my example (though I can't work out at the time of night that I'm typing this whether I really need to).

I'm led to believe that some creationists explain the fossil record as an attempt by a creator to mislead the unwary into believing in evolution, whereas evolutionists explain it as the result of evolution. Both theories explain the same evidence, but the latter is simpler than the former. Does that example present similar problems?

Remster

PS As I've just told Romansh, I'm off for a week, so please don't think I'm ignoring you if you don't get a reply for a while.

romansh · 05-11-2008, 10:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Remster

Quote:

Like I said before I am happy with it being a bloody good assumption.

That's fine, as long as you acknowledge that theism can be a good assumption too (i.e. psychologically good).

The vase will be red and if the red room is the same red, the vase may be difficult to see (ignoring shadows etc).

I have met people who claim Christianity has saved their lives ... I had no reason to disbelieve that they did not believe it ... it that sense I could accept it as accurate.

pseudonous · 05-15-2008, 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Remster

Are you informing me that a great deal of technology depends on the truth of some anti-Newtonian theory? If so, I'd like to change my example (though I can't work out at the time of night that I'm typing this whether I really need to).

Yes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Remster

I'm led to believe that some creationists explain the fossil record as an attempt by a creator to mislead the unwary into believing in evolution, whereas evolutionists explain it as the result of evolution. Both theories explain the same evidence, but the latter is simpler than the former. Does that example present similar problems?

No, I can imagine both of these possibilities.

**debdodd** · 05-16-2008, 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by romansh

Quote:

Originally Posted by Remster

I'm failing to get the point across. The question I'm raising isn't whether sounds, arms, etc. continue to exist when they're not being perceived, i.e. whether they're objective. Rather, the question I'm raising is whether it's possible to have false beliefs about the subjective, i.e. things that exist only while you're experiencing them?

Still not sure exactly what you mean. Is pain or the absence a figment of my imagination? Or maybe ... The beer in the fridge only exists when I open the door and see it?
My obtuse answer regarding ... pain now ... needed a definition now. Was not feeling pain until I started to look for it. Happens when you start getting older.

Quote:

Either way, the main issue here is whether you know that x=x, and the alternative you've given to its being an assumption (which is where I want to end up) is that it's a definition. A definition of what? And is a definition the sort of thing that can be true or false? If so, how do you know whether it's true or false that x=x?

Rem ... I'm never going to use the word "know" whilst you are around ...

I have not found (for me) an exception to this observation. I fully aware your x may not be the same as mine. x=x is a tool I (we) use everyday. Like I said before I am happy with it being a bloody good assumption.

My ex is a jerk ..... oh wait .... you're not talking about that kind of ex !!!!! My bad!! just ignore this post ...

Remster · 05-20-2008, 07:51 AM

Rom

Back again.

So we have so far two unverified beliefs that an agnostic might have:

the belief that the pseudo-Newtonian theory (or some other pseudo-scientific theory) is false
the belief that for any x, x = x

Now ...

Quote:

The vase will be red and if the red room is the same red, the vase may be difficult to see (ignoring shadows etc).

That's not what I'm getting at: I'm assuming that you can pick the vase out. What I'm getting at is that in all three cases you're 'experiencing redness'. Does that sound right? Have you any objections to the expression I've used ('experiencing redness')?

Rem