Did you notice that I said probabilities stand in for facts in some sciences (soft sciences)? Standing in for is an as-if situation, never equivalent to, but serving in place of.
WC --- On Sat, 11/1/08, GEOFF CREALOCK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: GEOFF CREALOCK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: "Certainty" > To: [email protected] > Date: Saturday, November 1, 2008, 4:27 PM > William: I agree with most of your points. I would quibble > with your > assertion that in "science there are facts". That > may be true in the > prestigious "hard sciences" but in social science > and I suspect in medicine, > we are reduced to examining/dealing with probabilities: 79% > of patients with > that diagnosis die within X years. Unless you would assert > that a > probability is a fact - it would be a somewhat different > fact than the > temperature at which water boils or when > "Guernica" was completed. > Geoff C > > > >From: William Conger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Reply-To: [email protected] > >To: [email protected] > >Subject: Re: "Certainty" > >Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2008 10:43:25 -0700 (PDT) > > > >One sort of certainty is a condition of belief even > though belief can never > >be certain in a worldly sense because it can't be > objectified. > > > > Certainty is affected by whatever is said to be > certain. As Geoff says, > >the thing measured affects the results of measurement. > > > >It is statistically certain that I will die even though > death itself is an > >uncertain condition (no one can say-- or ever said -- > for sure what it is > >to be dead). > > > > In science there are facts, not certainties. Facts > may change if the > >conditions defining them change. There are also > observed probabilities, > >norms, that stand in for facts which stand in for > certainties which stand > >in for beliefs. > > > >The brain likes certainty gained through experiences > both first and second > >hand and settles for beliefs, facts, probabilities. We > may have evolved > >some genes that build in preference for some beliefs, > thus saving us the > >trouble of sticking our heads into blazing fire to see > what happens. > > > >The subjective certainty (beliefs) has only probable, > statistical, > >correspondence to objective facts. unknowable because > changeable facts are > >That's as close as we get to pure objectivity. > Certainty is, therefore, > >taken as analogous to facts -- what works in specific > conditions. > > > >Shoot that down. With certainty. > >WC > > > > > >--- On Sat, 11/1/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Subject: Re: "Certainty" > > > To: [email protected] > > > Date: Saturday, November 1, 2008, 11:57 AM > > > In a message dated 11/1/08 12:18:48 PM, > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > > > > > > > > Cheerskep: Sure. Setting up more smoke > screen, I can > > > see. You'll be able to > > > > shoot down all offerings. > > > > > > > Geoff, you're a psychologist. You have to > know how much > > > the possibility of > > > progress between disputants (e.g. a man and wife, > or Palin > > > and her critics) is > > > hampered when, instead of addressing what the > first guy has > > > just said, the > > > second guy dismissively imputes a despicable > motive to the > > > first guy. > > > > > > You're diametrically wrong to suggest I want > to throw > > > up a smoke screen. My > > > aim is consistently to blow smoke away. > > > > > > And you're also very wrong if you think my > motivation > > > on the forum is a > > > delight I get from "shooting down all > offerings". > > > It isn't. I wish gummed-up > > > offerings never hit the forum in the first place. > Look back > > > at the assertions you > > > yourself have taken exception to on the forum. > Were you > > > doing that solely for > > > the satisfaction of shooting something down? > > > > > > Besides, if you to tell us what you have in mind > when you > > > use the word > > > 'certainty', unless the notion has > blatant internal > > > inconsistencies, no one can > > > prove you "wrong". And at the very > least it will > > > give us a better idea what you're > > > talking about. I confess that often when I've > examined > > > closely some notion > > > I've been entertaining, only then did I > discover how > > > fuzzy it was. > > > > > > *** > > > I had written: > > > > > > The word 'certainty' is now being used on > the forum > > > by folks who have not > > > described their notion when they use the word. > Try > > > describing it, gang. You won't > > > find it easy. > > > > > > The reasons for describing what you have in mind > are, > > > first, that, without > > > making your notion serviceably clear, you may be > talking > > > past each other -- i.e. > > > each has a different idea of what's at issue. > Second, > > > you may discover your > > > unexamined notion is fatally fuzzy. > > > > > > Still, when you use the word, you tend to think > you have a > > > serviceably > > > clear notion in mind, so take why not a shot at > it? > > > > > > > > > > > > ************** > > > Plan your next getaway with AOL Travel. Check > out
