--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, grate.swan <no_re...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard M" <compost1uk@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, grate.swan <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard M" <compost1uk@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > > > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I don't believe that causality is ever experienced. It is > > > > > > belief that bridges the cause and the effect in a person's mind. > > > > > > > > > > Very elegantly put. > > > > > > > > > > But it leads to a wicked thought. Doesn't that make the idea of > > > > > "causality" and "scientific law" as much a PROJECTION on to the > > > > > shit that happens as is, say, the idea of deities, sprites, > > spirits, > > > > > and other "superstitious" what-not? They're just alternative > > > > > "language games" for the same thing (stuff-that-happens)? You > > > > > choose the one that floats your boat best down the shit stream. > > But the > > > > > one you choose is not necessarily TRUE, it's just the one that's > > more > > > > > or less able to get you from your chosen A to your chosen B? > > > > > > > > > > Curtis - I thought you had a more progessive epistemology than > > that! > > > > > > > > Scientific choices are not as random as that. Humans have been at > > it long enough to no longer need to use characters from literature as > > starting points for theories. This shift is historically called the > > "enlightenment" which makes Maharishi's misuse of his "Age of > > Enlightenment" which proposes going back to the pre-reason model, all > > the more ironically absurd. > > > > > > > > You fill in the gaps as best as you can in the scientific method. > > You give more or less weight to different descriptions as you discover > > if it applies to more areas that strengthen the overall theory. Then > > you test the shit out of all the falsifiable theories you can conjure > > up. Occasionally very good evidence that cannot be denied comes along > > and blows your theory up, and a new model is necessary to explain it > > and what you have discovered before. This is happening less and less, > > not more and more in science, because we do understand some stuff > > pretty well and we are building on that. > > > > > > > > > > > > Probability, statistics, and vaguely worded unfalsifiable > > predictions give Yagyas all the wiggle room needed for people who > > already "know" their effect and how they work to find all the evidence > > they need. We have so many cognitive gaps, and sometimes it is hard to > > face how poorly we are equipped to test such claims, especially after > > we have paid for them. > > > > > > > > And then you have A-hole scientists who sometimes subvert the > > process of inquiry into a way to support the latest pharmaceutical, > > only giving the method lip service(Not the kind that feels good) for > > some gold coins with "In God We Trust" stamped on them. > > > > > > > > And finally we have a complex mysterious world that has defied our > > ability to achieve complete knowledge with absolute certainty and this > > makes some people so nervous they turn to an explanation from a fairy > > tale to help them go to sleep. > > > > > > > > So epistemological humility is appropriate in facing the world. > > But that doesn't mean we don't know anything at all. We just don't > > everything. And we always have to be on the lookout for things we KNOW > > that aren't so. If we care about keeping it real, that is. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, in a very real sense we KNOW nothing. We can only know what is > > NOT, not what IS. Its Hume's problem of induction, How many white swans > > do you need to see until you "know the truth" that all swans are white? > > 1000, one million, one billion? > > > > > > At one billion, you may say, "well, the statistical probability of > > knowing that there are no black swans is astronomically huge -- we have > > a sample of one billion. The probability that there are other than > > white swans is on the far far side of the tail (of the normal > > distibution). > > > > > > The problem is that the normal distribution accounts for some things > > nicely, and yet is hugely flawed as a representative distribution for > > far more things. You don't really know the distribution until you have > > seen the entire population, not just a sample. Many things have > > distributions with enormously fat tails. That is, they have a much > > higher probability of occurring than the normal distribution would > > predict. But hey, the white swan theory worked extremely well at > > predicting the color of swans. Everyone continued to see only white > > swans, "What a marvelous model we have", everyone beamed. Until one > > black swan was discovered. Then many. opps -- our poor normal > > distribution totally sucked and we fell for it. If we had be > > significantly on this model, we would hve bee nwiped out. > > > > > > The only thing we know now is that NOT all swans are white. We don't > > know what IS only what is NOT. A doctor can say he finds no evidence of > > disease in you. That is far far from saying ."I have evidence of no > > disease in you". > > > > > > > Aren't we in bigger shit than this though in reality? To "know" the > > negative depends on "knowing" a positive viz. "Nabster in Tasmania > > has seen a black swan". But perhaps Nabster was pissed? perhaps it > > seemed like a swan, but wasn't really? Perhaps it was a white swan > > swimming in an oil slick? After all Nabster has been seeing some > > funny stars recently! > > > > So "We can only know what is NOT, not what IS" is too optimistic? > > > > Well, I think in due course that the world of science can test the damn bird > and determine that it truly is black and truly is a swan. Unless you are > questioning the definition of black and the genetic makeup of swans. > > But to be safe, perhaps we can "We clearly don't know what IS, and we damn > well have problems even knowing what is NOT". >
I *think* I'd agree!
