Very clever. --Doug
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 3:37 PM, Nicholas Thompson < nickthomp...@earthlink.net> wrote: > Doug wrote **** > > ** ** > > In retrospect, I suppose I do have faith in one other fairly immutable > quality -- the accuracy of my bullshit detector **** > > ** ** > > Well, why not. it’s always worked in the past …. . **** > > ** ** > > Nick **** > > ** ** > > *From:* friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On > Behalf Of *Douglas Roberts > *Sent:* Tuesday, March 27, 2012 2:55 PM > > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Just as a bye-the-way**** > > ** ** > > Thanks, Nick, you describe an interesting way of establishing a life-view. > **** > > ** ** > > Not quite sure how to answer, except to say that if I have faith in > anything, it is in evidence. If I have accrued a sufficient pile of > evidence that supports a conclusion about some observation, then I'll > probably believe it. **** > > ** ** > > If my collected evidence is such that the inescapable conclusion is that > nothing is constant, then I suppose I'd eventually come around to believe > that, so long as I had a constant framework from which to corroborate and > verify the inconsistencies. Otherwise, I'd continue to look for the > missing pieces of the puzzle (a reference to the cosmological artifacts I > sent you earlier).**** > > ** ** > > As to religion: for me it's a big "No thank you" to any cult mindthink > that requires brainless acceptance of a supernatural > homo-centric benevolent/malevolent boogyman. And that goes double for one > particular cult whose belief system is predicated upon > "hieroglyph"-inscribed disappearing golden tablets. Oh, and I guess that > goes triple for any cult that attempts to dictate what kind of skivies I > must wear to become a member of the club. I guess you could say that it > would take a *miracle* to get me to assent to becoming a member of any of > the existing flocks of theist-following sheep out there.**** > > ** ** > > In retrospect, I suppose I do have faith in one other fairly immutable > quality -- the accuracy of my bullshit detector.**** > > ** ** > > --Doug**** > > ** ** > > On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 11:47 AM, Nicholas Thompson < > nickthomp...@earthlink.net> wrote:**** > > Dear Doug, **** > > **** > > I am afraid that the black hole example is already too technologically > dense for me, so I am going to punt on the project of luring you inside my > walls and slaughtering you there, and just out-right tell you what I think > **** > > . **** > > The argument began with my detecting in you (perhaps wrongly) the belief > that you, unlike the religious, can get along without some sort of faith in > your life. Most people I have known in the past who have reached this > conclusion have done so through their confidence in induction. “What do I > need with faith if I can just collect the evidence and act on it?’ And the > answer is that without faith of some sort, there is no foundation for > induction. **** > > **** > > The argument for this position is famously from Hume. A version of it is > colorfully laid out by Nelson Goodman in his *The New Riddle of Induction > *. So let’s say, I want to learn if grass is green. My religious buddy > says, “Look in the Bible. I am sure it’s in there somewhere.’ My atheist > buddy says, “nonsense, go out and look at the grass.” I’m an atheist, so I > go out and start collecting samples of grass. I collect a hundred samples > and I bring them back in announce that I am satisfied that all grass is > green. At which point my religious buddy says, No, No, you have no > evidence there that Grass is green. “All you have is evidence that grass > is grue.” “Grue!?” I say. “What’s Grue?”**** > > **** > > Charitably forgoing the opportunity to ask, “I dunno. What’s Grue with > you?” my religious buddy simply says, “It’s the property of being Green > until your last measurement, and Blue thereafter. “ **** > > **** > > “Nonsense,” I reply. “What kind of a property is THAT? Nature doesn’t > HAVE properties like that. **** > > **** > > “Perhaps that’s been true”, he replies, *but only up till now*!”**** > > **** > > In other words, our belief in induction is based on our plausible but > unfounded belief in induction, i.e., faith. **** > > **** > > Nick **** > > **** > > **** > > -----Original Message----- > From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On > Behalf Of glen e. p. ropella > Sent: Monday, March 26, 2012 11:40 AM > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Just as a bye-the-way**** > > **** > > **** > > This is a red herring. The argument for dark matter/energy need not be > inductive. The inductive form is:**** > > **** > > o we've defined the set based on the laws of physics we've observed o > everything is in this set o gravity seems stronger/weaker than predicted in > some contexts**** > > .: there are unobserved members of the set: dark matter and energy.**** > > **** > > A non-inductive argument for dark matter/energy is just as valid:**** > > **** > > o the model we've induced is not completely consistent with the data o the > laws characterize everything we've encountered so far**** > > .: there must be something we haven't encountered that will refine the > laws.**** > > **** > > No induction is necessary to motivate a hypothesis for some form of matter > that's imprecisely or inaccurately described by the laws we've, so far, > induced. But parsimony suggests that a theory that assumes it's complete > is more testable than a theory with metaphysical holes in it.**** > > So, the argument for dark matter _seems_ inductive, even though it's not. > Only someone who assumes our laws are complete (fully refined) would think > the argument is inductive. My sample is small. But I don't know of any > physicists or cosmologists who think our laws cannot be modified.**** > > **** > > I.e. it's naive to assume identity between a scientific theory and the > reasoning surrounding the pursuit of a scientific theory.**** > > **** > > **** > > Douglas Roberts wrote at 03/24/2012 03:08 PM:**** > > > There's also an interesting "dark matter" inference that has found its * > *** > > > way into grudging cosmological acceptance. This time the role of the ** > ** > > > inferred substance is to keep galaxies from flying apart, as it has **** > > > recently been observed that based on the amount of their measurable, *** > * > > > observable mass and rotational velocities, they should flung their **** > > > stars off ages ago.**** > > > **** > > > --Doug**** > > > **** > > > **** > > > On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 3:16 PM, Douglas Roberts <d...@parrot-farm.net * > *** > > > <mailto:d...@parrot-farm.net <d...@parrot-farm.net>>> wrote:**** > > > **** > > > I feel that I am being drawn in to an enemy encampment, but:**** > > > **** > > > Developing a proof would be far better than choosing to rely**** > > > on inference, if the goal is to develop a larger-scale understanding > **** > > > of a system.**** > > > **** > > > Take "dark energy" as an example. Its presence is inferred from**** > > > having observed that the rate of expansion of the observable**** > > > universe began to accelerate relatively recently, on a cosmological* > *** > > > time scale. In response to this, the cosmologists have inferred the > **** > > > existence of a mysterious energy with magical gravitational**** > > > repulsive properties as a means to explain away an otherwise**** > > > inexplicable observation. A much more satisfying approach will be** > ** > > > to develop a sufficient understanding of the underlying physics of** > ** > > > our universe from which a rigorous proof of the phenomenon could be* > *** > > > derived.**** > > > **** > > > But, without that understanding, we are left with cosmological**** > > > "magic dust", instead of a real understanding of the observed > dynamics.**** > > > **** > > > --Doug**** > > **** > > **** > > --**** > > glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://tempusdictum.com**** > > **** > > **** > > ============================================================**** > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv**** > > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College**** > > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org**** > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org**** > > > > **** > > ** ** > > -- > Doug Roberts > drobe...@rti.org > d...@parrot-farm.net**** > > http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins**** > > > 505-455-7333 - Office > 505-670-8195 - Cell**** > > ** ** > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > -- Doug Roberts drobe...@rti.org d...@parrot-farm.net http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins <http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins> 505-455-7333 - Office 505-670-8195 - Cell
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
