Comments by "bakters" (@bakters) on ""But how do you know you're right?" - Objective Theory of History" video.
-
That's the problem with philosophy - It relies on surface level of understanding and sophisticated use of language way too often. For example, you say that "We sense reality directly through our senses. Our eyes do not change reality before it hits our brain."
That's factually incorrect. Our senses are a bunch of neurons, which become excited by stimuli, then send the electrical signal (done chemically, just for fun) into our brain. The brain creates a sensation. There is nothing direct about this process.
Anyway, yes, we can't know everything. Yes, it's impossible to prove that we know something, especially if the other side refuses to listen. However, we can know something nonetheless. And we can know it, because our ideas can be verified .
In history, it does not happen all the time, since new sources become available only when someone researches a new concept. Yet, still, newly discovered ancient texts do appear from time to time, so even that happens. Apart from that, we can verify history through non-historical means. Archaeology, chemistry, biology, genetics, everything we've learned since the original idea or narrative first appeared.
Then it's the "crossword puzzle" analogy. There is a crossword puzzle popular in my family, where you have to guess not only the words, but also where to put them. The beginnings are very hard and there is a lot of guesswork involved, but by the end, when it's all filled out, it's obvious that it's the only correct solution (with minor errors still possible).
So it's really possible to know something and history is not special. Every other branch of knowledge relies on the same mechanism.
2
-
2
-
@BenTrem42 Re: philosophy of science
It seems rather obvious to me, that philosophy of science follows science, strives to describe it, instead of being the basis of the scientific investigation.
" rigorous experiments do not disprove [theories]. "
Well, scientists usually talk about verifying or testing theories, much less often about falsifying them. The difference is subtle, but meaningful.
The concept of falsification suggests, that all theories are "wrong", and it's just a matter of time before we are able to show it. That in turn suggests, that "truth" is just a momentary illusion, while I (and most scientists, I believe) think that the Sun is really at the center of the Solar System, electrons really exist, a heart is a pump, our mind is in our brain, etc.
In other words, I do believe that science discovers objective truths about reality, not just builds progressively more precise mathematical models of it.
If mathematical precision was all that mattered, Ptolemy was "correct", while Copernicus was "wrong".
2
-
@Loehengrin " your own motivation in adopting Objectivism "
I can't say that I adopted it, at the very least because I don't really know what it is all about.
All I can say is, that I disagree with their premises, as outlined by TiK. Namely, I'm quite sure that our sense definitely are not a perfect representation of reality.
I might like where they end up, but it's really hard to adopt a worldview based on silly premises.
" Why adopt any school of thought "
A part of it would be convenience. It's extremely tiring to try to figure out every decision you make from ground zero, even if you have the capacity for it.
The other reason is necessity, because most of us simply do not have the capacity to think everything through at every step we take.
Therefore, it's useful to have at least a starting point, which is much further out along the way. It may not be the perfect way, but at least the direction is already predetermined. For better or worse.
" I find the road that looks most likely to take me to my destination "
You wouldn't need to make this choice, if the route was already pre-planned by a worldview that you adopted. What's more, once you adopt the worldview, you don't even need to choose the destination.
Beats the pants off the alternative, which is aimless wandering from "start to finish" of our short stay here. Definitely for most of us, I believe.
2
-
1
-
@BenTrem42 " You can then say absolute things about the system. "
Under those assumptions, it works.
" No uncertainty? "
For an ideal gas, pv really equals nRT.
For a real gas, it depends. While real gases never follow this equation with absolute precision, your real measurements are not absolutely precise either.
So this statement remains true. You'd have to phrase it a bit differently, though. Like in: "This specific gas, under those specific conditions follows pv=nRT as closely as we can measure it."
And this statement would be absolutely true.
" No Heisenberg? Nothing quantum? "
I think they tried to figure out how a steam engine works, so there was no quantum physics yet.
And they did figure it out. What I mean is, that steam is very far from an ideal gas, but the closer it gets to it, the closer it follows the ideal gas equation.
1
-
@Eddie_of_the_A_Is_A_Gang " asking for something it establishes can be confusing "
Okay, I'll give you an example. If someone asked me the same about chemistry, I could have said, that we know that the simplest possible atom consist of one proton and one electron. It's established knowledge, because all chemistry relies on it and chemistry works.
Got it now? Tell me something like that about epistemology.
" Man is born tabula raza is one of them "
You mean, it's one of the "false" epistemologies? Because that is not a true statement.
Anyway, those other guys? Are they true or false, and how do I tell the difference?
" an Axiom cannot be just something you assume "
That's how it works in math. (It's not "just" an assumption, but whatever.)
" If you assume God exists, you would still be wrong. "
Assuming you are a zebra, your fur is vertically striped. Do you understand that it's a true statement, regardless if you are a zebra or not?
" Axiom is undeniable because the very action of denying it implies the Axiom "
I can easily assume, that the sum of all angles in a square is more than 360, so what? It doesn't "deny" Euclidean squares.
My assumption is even true on Earth, but it does not make Euclidean squares false.
" Existence, Consciousness and Identity "
Those are very complex ideas. More like topics. How come you guys can base anything solid on such nebulous foundations?
Let me guess. You can't. I'm right, am I not?
" man Act, because to deny it is to do an action "
What if you ignore it? (Oh my, it can't be that silly, can it?)
1
-
@Loehengrin " you can go a long way just by asking how do we know what we know? "
I did that, actually. I think I even have a working concept (an analogy) of how we know stuff. Unfortunately, it's very simple, so probably destined to be ignored. It's hard to impress people with simplicity.
" I choose objectivism because all other schools of thought lead to conclusions I don't like "
It's not as silly as it seems. If the conclusions are absurd, it's at least very likely that the method is at fault. Like in, you calculate a chemical problem and arrive at a negative mass. You did it wrong, didn't you?
Once in a blue moon there is no escape, which happened to me (the problem was badly formulated). But usually it's the other way around.
" Objectivism is nothing more than relativism LARPing as realism "
Does it mean we can't know anything? If so, I disagree. We really know that Earth is not at the center of the Solar System, or our space probes would not land where they need to land. We know that electrons exist, because if they didn't, we wouldn't be able to communicate right now. Etc.
1
-
@Eddie_of_the_A_Is_A_Gang " apple to oranges "
Knowledge is knowledge.
Yes, I do assume that things exist, that they can be defined precisely enough, and that we can be aware of their existence. Thanks for clearing it out.
Those are assumptions though, not conclusions.
(I mean, there are people who seriously postulate that the Universe is a simulation running in the mind of God. If that were true, your axioms would be incorrect, but still work properly.)
" If you assume something that is faulty, whatever statement you have made is not based in anything. "
That's not true. The statements are based on the assumption . If you are a zebra, then your fur is striped.
" arbitrary statement have no truth value "
Then 2+2=idunno, because 2+2=4 is an arbitrary statement.
" i gave you the philosophical definition of an Axiom "
That's how people thought about axioms in math too. But then they learned stuff, and now they know better .
What have you guys learned since then?
" *''Right now, i am not writing''
Well clearly i am writing, this statement cannot be true.* "
Well, it can be. It's a side note, but the diffused set logic would really help you guys. Another thing mathematicians have learned since antiquity...
" It remains true even if you ignore it. "
You said that the action of denial was what defeated the denial itself. Inaction does not defeat anything.
" At that point, there is only one thing you can do. Stop the conversation right there. "
Cope.
1
-
@BenTrem42 " or you missed the point of the original question "
You asked about uncertainty, if it makes "absolute" statements impossible, as far as I can tell.
So no, it does not. The statements themselves rely on a set of assumptions, and as long as those assumptions are being met sufficiently, those statements remain perfectly true. (Especially if you take care to verse out all the silent assumptions most physicists take for granted.)
" you don't deal with uncertainty "
I thought I did. The part with "even if the gases aren't ideal, we can't know that, because our measurements aren't ideal either".
If that's the case, the gases behave exactly as our models predict they should, so our statements (equations) are 100% correct.
" probabilistics, another big part of ontology/epistemology "
Is it, really? That's news to me. Anyway, I don't see any problems inherent to what I wrote so far with regards to that. And yes, obviously I'm aware of that aspect of reality.
" So ... nothing for me to engage here. "
Another one? You philosophers appear to be particularly timid guys. One solid punch, you're outta there!
1
-
@BenTrem42 " is all about gases "
Just an example somebody else used. Yes, the ideal gas laws can never exactly reflect the behavior of real systems. So? Did we learn anything of importance once we discovered them?
I think yes. Unequivocally yes!
" under what I take to be Newtonian theories "
Actually no, but whatever. I don't wanna go there, until there is a real need for it.
" Heisenberg and things quantum [...] how brain works "
Deterministic chaos is a thing too. There is no need for quantum effects in order to not be able to predict the outcomes with any certainty.
That's what you guys don't seem to understand, seriously. You see, there are deterministic mathematical equations, which are so sensitive to the initial parameters, that we can only predict some general behavior (atractors, that kind of stuff). It takes a lot of runs to figure those out, otherwise it looks like there is no regularity to it at all.
We can easily conceive a reality in which we have access only to the results of such equations, so Heisenberg's uncertainty can very well be a natural consequence of complex deterministic interactions.
Anyway, yes. Quantum effects govern all chemistry, so whether we talk about real gasses, or a lot of goop called the brain, they surely do matter.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
" the historical method is a cousin to the scientific method "
If that's the case, you'd have to throw away "bad sources", just like the scientists throw away bad data.
Contrary to the popular belief, scientific data are usually bad. That's the norm. It takes a lot of verification, ideally by independent researchers, ideally through independent methods, to finally be able to say, that: "yes, atoms are not indivisible and electrons do exist".
You practically never analyze "all the data". (And if somebody does that, it's likely because they intentionally introduce more noise, in order to get to the predetermined conclusion.)
However, I do agree that there exists a similarity between both methods. Meaning, it takes a "cumulative evidence" in order to become more convinced and less skeptical about some idea. Ideally acquired with different methods (archaeology, genetics, what not).
1