religious "absolutism"... or absolutism, per se?.....I don't know, Archytas.....there's the saying... "Nothing is certain but Death and Taxes"..... I think that actual "facts" (most applicably physical "facts") are absolute enough....I'm partial to "agnosticism"... like Mr. Ornstein.... even as to "religion"....but "facts" would seem to strongly refute the "absolute nature" of a lot of "surface" religious belief or faith.....Still, "one" does run across examples of "saints"... "martyrs".... and the like... some of their history or life "facts" are extraordinary if not absolutely supernatural....
On Monday, January 21, 2013 12:40:35 PM UTC-5, archytas wrote: > > "Sciences differ from ideologies, from most mathematics and from > religions. The latter > require undiluted, absolute faith/belief in the ‘truth’ of their > axiomatics" - from Ornstein's paper (early). > > Can we really believe this? It seems right, and yet do people really > believe in the 'absolute' way at all? They may say so - yet I don't > see much evidence in the actual world. Do people really bow to god/s > or in performance to people around them to be part of the club? > > On Jan 21, 4:51 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I'm not sure how to value dung-beetle droppings Nom - but ... HAR. > > Much to agree with in Ornstein's papers - the one referenced at the > > end of the latest one is much to my own view. The problem I have is I > > don't believe most people enter into the lists of argument, clinging > > instead to a world-view more or less immutable and that most > > 'argument' is, in any case, a performance aimed at succor to ideology. > > 'Evidence- based decision-making' has been around a long time, as have > > assertions we should get our politicians and others in power to > > involve themselves and be capable of it. I see very little sign of > > any of it. Even most scientists are no good at it. In a western from > > years back Dean Martin says 'I never got much by arguing' - he's > > feeling his gun. Most people are so poor in argument they know it's > > not much use to them and they won't give up to its arbitration. So > > Ornstein is 90% right, and much as I agree, not much help in shifting > > education and politics to somewhere more sensible. Good to see the > > stuff though. > > > > On Jan 15, 7:33 pm, nominal9 <nomin...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > PS... Archytas, et al... have you read the article? Apart from my > picayune > > > "epistemological" points of disagreement....It is very, very good. I > agree > > > with it... 90% I'd say......... for whatever my opinion is > worth.....HAR. > > > > > On Tuesday, January 15, 2013 2:26:22 PM UTC-5, nominal9 wrote: > > > > > > Mr. Ornstein, > > > > I read your abstract and liked it....agreed with it, largely, as to > its > > > > content. > > > > You asked for comments and corrections, so I offer a possible > grammatical > > > > correction (or maybe I misunderstood the structure of your > sentence). On > > > > page 8 of your essay you wrote the following: > > > > > > "Since it is only such formulations [that axiomatically define a > word > > > > (all) in a way that logically conflicts with what can be observed] > > > > might insure the kind of falsification that Karl Popper > > > > proposed to be so important in science, his arguments about > falsification > > > > are trivial and unhelpful." > > > > > > As you should see (if the writing program represented it properly), > I left > > > > a gap mid-sentence. This is where there may be a grammatical error. > I > > > > wonder if a conjunctive pronoun such as "that" or "which" is lacking > to > > > > make this sentence more clear? I point this out not to be a stickler > but as > > > > a "proofing" of your essay that is intended for publication. > > > > > > As to your content, again, I agreed "largely" with what your essay > says. > > > > it was well written and very understandable, as well. I particularly > agreed > > > > with your summation of the scientific method... the "model / > empirical > > > > experiment" approach... I also liked your references to other > current > > > > "philosophical (?)" approaches to these questions such as the > distinction > > > > between Post Modernists and Positivists. I would say that you have > much > > > > less to criticize about the Positivists than you have to criticize > about > > > > the Post Modernists. As an aside, this would seem to favor more my > view > > > > than the view of my friend Archytas (HAR)... which, of course > tickles me > > > > pink... Also, I noted that you referred in your essay to Ockham's > Razor.... > > > > I like Ockham, myself, but much more than for his "razor"... I like > Ockham > > > > for his of VOX... separated and composite- composed of Conceptus > (Concept) > > > > directed at Res(physical thing)... Ockham'c First Intention VOX are > very > > > > much like the initial observational stage of the "scientific" > method"... > > > > observing empirical physical things to arrive at a conceptual model > ... > > > > subsequently verified by further physical experiments to establish > > > > recurring reliability.....Ockham also suggested Second Intention VOX > which > > > > continue within the thinking mind "abstractly" and formulate all > sorts of > > > > other "thought-up" relations within and among both the Conceptus > side and > > > > the Res side of "things".... > > > > > > Anyway, I think that "scientific method" has much in common with and > > > > relies a lot on the basic framework supplied by William Of Ockham > (and > > > > others)... > > > > > > Now, I have one question as to your terminology... would you define > your > > > > terms "subjective" and "objective" as they are to be understood > within your > > > > "thinking"? Let me put it this way....It appeared to me that around > page > > > > five, mostly, you rendered the division (or separation) between: 1) > the > > > > actual (out-of-mind) physical entity; 2) the sense experience > > > > (inside-mind) mental image and 3) the eventual (inside-mind) > explanatory > > > > model. Now this "model" as you call it was then communicated as the > "theory > > > > in progress of ongoing verification" that is communicated to others > and > > > > understood as shared meaning....you conclude then by getting to the > > > > following statement: > > > > "The more precise the communication of meaning, the more objective > in is > > > > usually perceived to be. The more ambiguous (the more interpretation > may > > > > vary from person to person), the more subjective." > > > > Now here's my question.....what do the terms "objective and > subjective" > > > > that you use here actually refer to?... is the1) the actual > (out-of-mind) > > > > physical entity OBJECTIVE? Is the 2) the sense experience > (inside-mind) > > > > mental image SUBJECTIVE? And is the 3) the eventual (inside-mind) > > > > explanatory model. SUBJECTIVE?... that is what I would propose. And > that is > > > > not what your sentence quoted above actually says.... I propose that > > > > Objective should be defined as the ...1)actual out-of-mind Physical > > > > thing... and "differently" that anything which is.... 2) in the mind > or 3)a > > > > product of the mind's workings..... should be termed subjective..... > > > > > > If you have the time and inclination, Mr. Ornstein.....maybe you can > > > > clarify this (or your opinion of this) for me. > > > > > > Essence, Mr Ornstein is another term that you make use of and which > is not > > > > defined... this gets into the question of universals and is a > related to > > > > the subjective-objective, empirical-abstractive differences. > > > > > > Let me put it this way.....I have difficulty with the > > > > "Idealist-Platonists"... and the Phenomenologists calling some (out > > > > -of-mind ) things.... Subjective... when they have independent > > > > "physicality"... on the other hand I don't much care for the > > > > Materialist-Realists and the Phenomenologists calling some > (in-mind) > > > > thought or thought products in particular Objective when thoughts or > > > > thought products are devoid of physicality... > > > > > > My bugaboo.....I suppose.... just doesn't make "sense" to me... as a > > > > William of Ockham nominalist.... > > > > > > On Thursday, January 10, 2013 1:39:18 PM UTC-5, > lenor...@pipeline.comOrnstein wrote: > > > > > >> *The Skeptical Scientific Mind-Set in the Spectrum of Belief: It’s > about > > > >> models of ‘reality’ – and the unavoidable incompleteness of > evidence, for – > > > >> or against – any model or fact. > > > >> * > > > >> Leonard Ornstein > > > > > >> *Abstract * > > > > > >> This essay examines topics that relate to the origins of beliefs, > in > > > >> general – and particularly, to ‘belief-in’ the sciences – and how > beliefs > > > >> impact our ability to cope with real-world problems: > > > > > >> Introspection about personal experiences of the external world, > using > > > >> the ‘images’ created by our sense organs (especially our vision) > should > > > >> convince us that we are usually aware of a great more detail than > our > > > >> finite vocabularies of words and symbols equip us to manage. So all > models > > > >> (stories/speculations/hypotheses/theories/laws) that we construct > to > > > >> communicate meaning about those experiences must be caricatures of > a richer > > > >> and more complex private set of conscious and unconscious images > and > > > >> impressions. As a result, at best, we can only build > stripped-down, > > > >> verbal/symbolic sketches about the world. These can hardly be > expected to > > > >> be complete models of absolute and (final?) ‘truth’. > > > > > >> Communication between individuals and groups likely developed as > a > > > >> means to, on average, increase the quality of life (the probability > of > > > >> survival, safety, convenience and comfort) compared to ‘going it > alone’. > > > >> For each of the communicating partners, the meanings of those > > > >> communications had to be believed to be the ‘same’ to try to > maximize the > > > >> fulfillment of such intentions. Therefore, the > voiced-words/symbols/codes, > > > >> and the fundamental rules for their use, needed to be arbitrarily > agreed > > > >> upon to ‘assure’ identical intended meanings. This is exactly the > function > > > >> of axiomatic definitions and rules at the roots of model building > for > > > >> languages, for mathematics and for logic. The qualifications and > > > >> limitations that apply to languages, math and logic must be very > similar to > > > >> those for building models for all systems of belief (ideologies, > religions > > > >> and science). Deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning are the > tools > > > >> used to examine the consequences of the axiomatics. How axiomatics > and > > > >> reason might fail to lead us to ‘truth' and certainty about models > > > >> therefore also requires understanding of inherent limitations > imposed on > > > >> both deductive and inductive reasoning. > > > > > >> Sciences differ from ideologies, from most mathematics and from > > > >> religions. The latter require undiluted, absolute faith/belief in > the > > > >> ‘truth’ of their axiomatics. However, science accepts (also > axiomatically) > > > >> that the degree-of-belief/confidence-in its models can never be > absolute. > > > >> The degree-of-belief is measured by how strongly pertinent, > empirical > > > >> evidence – developed through repeated observation and ‘testing’, > and always > > > >> limited by uncertainties of inductive reasoning, confirm the > > > >> predictions/projections of the models. > > > > ... > > > > read more » > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/epistemology/-/691S9ykYrocJ. To post to this group, send email to epistemology@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to epistemology+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
