No they start learning behavior that woks, they do not necessarily form ' a correct model of reality' in there minds — Tobias

And that behavior can be conducted as well by looking at the stars and base it on the configurations of the stars. Maybe not as you like it, or as science likes it but that's up to the people themselves. Science can offer a plead at most to conduct live on scientific base (and technological gadgets are very convincing!) but no more than that. It can't tell it's the way of conduct. Which has brought the world on the brink of a "nuclear exchange", to put it mildly, and natural disasters.

f yellow was called blue then would it rain tomorrow? — I like sushi

Interesting question! If the Sun was called rain it would probably rain if the Sun shines tomorrow.

More nonsense. If the sun was called ‘rain’ it would not be called ‘sun’ so the ‘sun shining’ is meaningless.

It is precisely these kinds of mistakes that result in gibberish.

It is precisely these kinds of mistakes that result in gibberish. — I like sushi

If sunshine was called rainfall, then tomorrow the rain would fall if the Sun shone...

And that behavior can be conducted as well by looking at the stars and base it on the configurations of the stars. Maybe not as you like it, or as science likes it but that's up to the people themselves. — Hillary

Yes it is. And generally they value efficiency. One could try to determine enemy troop movements by looking at the entrails of caught deer, as used to be the custom. However satelite images prove to be more trutsworthy. They generally resort to that.

Science can offer a plead at most to conduct live on scientific base (and technological gadgets are very convincing!) but no more than that. — Hillary

The sciences do not make any normative claims, just descriptive ones.

It can't tell it's the way of conduct. — Hillary

Law and ethics are disciplines that try to cover that ground.

Which has brought the world on the brink of a "nuclear exchange", to put it mildly, and natural disasters. — Hillary

Most unfortunate. It is people's doing, not science. I do not see why you would mix normative an descriptive claims.

I can point you at non-prosperity as well. Every culture has prosperities. Im glad prof. Kirschemann ooat the VU gave stuff to read about Feyerabend! — Hillary

Hahah, one telling me to read Kahneman, the other read Feyerabend, nice! Every culture might prosper, but apparently many like the gadgets produced based on a scientific understanding of the world.

Yes. Better! :)

Just apply that logic to some of your other thoughts and questions and you might be more worthy of my time ;)

Keep talking to your self...this is what you do after all. You are done....is this difficult for you to understand? — Nickolasgaspar

You need to type louder gasbag gaspar. It's getting harder to hear your cry's from the cradle.
Did mommy refuse to hug you again this morning?

Every culture might prosper, but apparently many like the gadgets produced based on a scientific understanding of the world. — Tobias

Yes, and rightly so! I like my little phone too! Why not? I mentioned Feyerabend because he shows very well that science is one culture amongst many. A very likable culture! Just look at the wonders of technique. But that same technique can cause mayhem too. And the mayhem caused is unprecedented in human history. Of course, the successes too. But these are usually put to the front in the justification, not the bad things.

Did mommy refuse to hug you again this morning? — universeness

:lol:

Ha! You're the best!

Don't play with capitalizations and exclamation marks to make a point. — Tobias

I will use capitalization. The points are made by the sentence itself, I just highlight the core concept in it. ITs free, available and I don't live in North Korea! ; )

Not at all, see my replies to Hillary. Of course we have empirical input, we are bodily creatures.. — Tobias

-I am not going to evaluate the principles used in our discussion by looking at your replies to Mr Hillary! I need to respect the points made in our discussion.
Maybe you are arguing for a different source and I failed to realize it. Pls elaborate.

I tried to google objective verification... did not yield much.This sentence is gibberish, objectively verified. — Tobias

-lol whats up with the members of this platform and their poor performance in search engines?
Relativist used the same argument to tap dance around the usage of a word reject and why non acceptance is not rejection!!
My mistake, I assume people know the basics on Philosophy of Science.
So the term you should search is Objective Independent Verification. Objective(Objectivism) just defines the Philosophical value behind the Standard of Independent Verification. Objective is the qualities of the produced results from this type of verification.

No they start learning behavior that woks, they do not necessarily form ' a correct model of reality' in there minds. — Tobias

Yes....as you said they are learning a behavior that works in their empirical world. This means that they verified objectively a behavior that has instrumental vallue. Changing the words doesn't change how they learn and why it works.
I am not interested in whether their model of reality is necessarily correct or not. The point of interest is that their empirical interactions are what is necessary for any type of model of reality to be realized in their brains. This is the argument that you challenge. Empirical interaction gives rise to models and concepts and by verifying them objectively we decide which qualify as principles and which do not.

A monkey that gets sprayed with cold water every time it touches a banana will stop touching the banana but not because it has formed an accurate picture of the world in its mind. — Tobias

_What does that even means? Why using monkeys on a discussion on how humans use the empirical feedback to form principles for their evaluations....! How this example qualifies as relevant ?

And before saying " God knows what the monkey thinks"... ask zoologists that study behavior and they will tell you that Mind Theory answers many of our questions on what animals think.
yes they form models, yes they inform their behavior through the feedback they receive,they use concepts, they guide their lives through their efforts to understand what their emotions "mean" and how the should act.
I think its KoKo the gorilla who was caught on cameras using the sign language she was taught...thinking her plan grabbing a banana while going to the freezer.

A monkey and chimps understand agency and causality and form assumptions about the cause. They are pretty accurate buy they are also superstitious like us. Watch videos with Chimps acknowledging the fruits of cooperation, or how they can understand the concept of money, how they use pebbles to buy grapes and why they get mad when they end up with cucumber for their worth of their money. Watch videos on studies about Chimps using orange juice that they love as money in order to "buy" time for looking at pictures of celebrities of their group....and even more juice to look at porn (chimp private parts).
So lets leave magic (god) out from what we know about animals.

And on and on it goes. Can I sumarize your contribution by the imperative "Read Kahneman"? If so it is duly noted. — Tobias

-No my contribution is that I point to material one should know before trying to do Philosophy on this specific topic.

You said that you don't promote magic...but you didn't attempt to explain where do you think our ideas and heuristics come from.
Without empirical interactions Humans don't just end up without ideas...they just die! W know that(unfortunately) from nursery facilities in Romania during communistic(lol not in theory) regimes where well feed newborns, deprived of all stimuli for long periods of times, had their brains shutdown.

So feel free to tell me why you believe those ideas...not just what you believe.

Hillary is a lost cause. "Jumps" are programmed in his syllogisms and no GOSUBs are allowed lol.
it goes like this
-I don't know (jump)god
-Science doesn't know (jump) god
-We know everything(jump) god
-I don't understand (Jump) god
-universe exists (jump) god
ITs like trying to reason with a 5yo while being at a party with other kids.
Not possible.

gasbag gaspar — universeness

I might change my pseudonym name to gasbag gaspar, instead of quark ninja... Catchy! :wink:

That is also true for universeness. He may have potentials and some knowledge but his ego doesn't allow him to be honest when he is wrong...plus he likes to accuse others for things he projects on them

Hillary is a lost cause. "Jumps" are programmed in his syllogisms and no GOSUBs are allowed lol.
it goes like this
-I don't know (jump)god
-Science doesn't know (jump) god
-We know everything(jump) god
-I don't understand (Jump) god
-universe exists (jump) god
ITs like trying to reason with a 5yo while being at a party with other kids.
Not possible. — Nickolasgaspar

Keep it coming, gasbag gaspar! :lol:

I don't worship them or listen to them, or derive moral from them insofar human relations are involved. The only moral I take from them is that creation is performed for all beings in heaven, not only for human gods — Hillary

I accept that your dalliance with theism satisfies a need in you and is harmless as such but I object to you sticking a label marked 'the truth' on it.

Btw, have you watched this month's podcast from Sean Carroll? I started to watch it last night but fell asleep about 20 mins into it. If you sent in questions this month, would it not be in this podcast that he might have answered you, or would more likely be next month's podcast. How does the Patreon system work? Do they inform you if they are going to answer your question in the podcast?
It's another 3.5-hour podcast so he should get through a fair number of questions he has been sent in that time.

Probably best to step away and just hope there is a possibility of a discussion on some other topic.

If not then so be it. Like you said, it can help to engage like this sometimes … sometimes it does not help at all. How to judge is your choice though, obviously :)

it goes like this
-I don't know (jump)god
-Science doesn't know (jump) god
-We know everything(jump) god
-I don't understand (Jump) god
-universe exists (jump) god — Nickolasgaspar

Okay, let's Analyze and offer Purely Reasoned Critique.

"I don't know (jump)god"

I do know gods. And by reading your "Comments", I can only conclude that some human gods are weird ones.

"Science doesn't know (jump) god"

Science doesn't know indeed. But I do.

"I don't understand (Jump) god"

But I do understand why they created the universe. But you don't accept that.

"We know everything(jump) god"

We (or me) know the basics. Of course we don't know everything that happens. Which can be considered an even greater argument for gods. Not because we can't know, but because we don't know.

universe exists (jump) god — Nickolasgaspar

Yes. The existence of the universe is proof when you know the cosmic workings.

two questions
Do you have any real arguments sparky or ad hominem fallacies is your norm?
Why do you insist in projecting your relation and rituals you have with your mum on to others?

Do they inform you if they are going to answer your question in the podcast? — universeness

They ask a dollar to question but without guaranteed response. You gave guaranteed response when you were a teacher. But it's worthwhile! A dollar I can spare!

Ive asked a question on the reactions part. The same I asked him by email. I have to check how to pay him that dollar.

Probably best to step away and just hope there is a possibility of a discussion on some other topic.

If not then so be it. Like you said, it can help to engage like this sometimes … sometimes it does not help at all. How to judge is your choice though, obviously — I like sushi

-True. The only problem is that these individuals are all over the place polluting so many discussions. Ignoring them after the initial interaction may be the best tactic.

I am not interested in whether their model of reality is necessarily correct or not. The point of interest is that their empirical interactions are what is necessary for any type of model of reality to be realized in their brains. This is the argument that you challenge. Empirical interaction gives rise to models and concepts and by verifying them objectively we decide which qualify as principles and which do not. — Nickolasgaspar

I do not dispute this at all. What I dispute your metaphysical jump to an accurate picture of reality. I do not mind the assertion that empircal findings lead to models that offer predictions about what the world might be like. What I dispute is your downplaying the role of imagination in this process. The problem is the same with all objectivists. They miss the problem of induction that has been around since Hume.

-No my contribution is that I point to material one should know before trying to do Philosophy on this specific topic. — Nickolasgaspar

Ohh dear, one should read your favourite author... have you read Sheila Jassanoff? Just because you read a book does not make you an authority. Books I read too.

You said that you don't promote magic...but you didn't attempt to explain where do you think our ideas and heuristics come from. — Nickolasgaspar

They come from the way our minds are wired together with interaction with the material world as well as with each other. We are bodily creatures so they come from practical interaction. Not the scientific interaction mind you, but practical interaction. Read Heidegger's analytic of equipment now that we are throwing books at each other.

Without empirical interactions Humans don't just end up without ideas...they just die! W know that(unfortunately) from nursery facilities in Romania during communistic(lol not in theory) regimes where well feed newborns, deprived of all stimuli for long periods of times, had their brains shutdown. — Nickolasgaspar

A strawman. I do believe interaction with the world is neessary for us to form ideas. It is a necessary condition, just not a sifficient one. Perception is not indepent of an perceiver. Impressions of the world land with a person already invested with preconceptions about how the world is, which will lead him or her to interpret data in particular ways. What I dispute is objective access to the outside world, that is access to the outside world as it really is and unclouded with our own presuppositions.

A strawman. I do believe interaction with the world is neessary for us to form ideas. It is a necessary condition, just not a sifficient one. Perception is not indepent of an perceiver. Impressions of the world land with a person already invested with preconceptions about how the world is, which will lead him or her to interpret data in particular ways. What I ispute is objective access to the outside world. — Tobias

Exactly! :up:

Just a 'small side point,' I have long time friends who have taught religious education in Scottish Secondary schools for 30+ years and they do mention many aspects of belief systems, such as astrology and other historical practices related to predicting the future such as the Delphic oracles etc.
I think these are aired as examples of 'historical human belief systems,' only but they are talked about in the RE course of Secondary schools in Scotland. Probably quite briefly however.

True. The only problem is that these individuals are all over the place polluting so many discussions. Ignoring them after the initial interaction may be the best tactic. — Nickolasgaspar

Then what you wanna discuss about? Rational Logical Arguments on Sound Scientific or Metaphysical Basis, to construct a Solid Epistemology to start from?

What's an RE course?

I might change my pseudonym name to gasbag gaspar, instead of quark ninja... Catchy! — Hillary

Stop reversing things you rebel! It's Ninja Quark not 'quark ninja.' I think 'quark ninja' was the Ferengi bar owner on Deep Space 9!

What's an RE course? — Hillary

I typed out the long version in:

I have long time friends who have taught religious education in Scottish Secondary schools — universeness

RE = Religious Education :smile:

He may have potentials and some knowledge but his ego doesn't allow him to be honest when he is wrong...plus he likes to accuse others for things he projects on them — Nickolasgaspar

How long are you going to stare into that mirror?
It's never going to declare you 'the fairest of them all' no matter how many times you ask it to.

two questions — Nickolasgaspar

Wow impressive! Two, did you think of them both? or did you get help?

Do you have any real arguments sparky or ad hominem fallacies is your norm? — Nickolasgaspar

That's not much of a question? Its just another toy flying from your pram.

Why do you insist in projecting your relation and rituals you have with your mum on to others? — Nickolasgaspar

Just trying to reassure you that hopefully your mommy or mommy substitute still loves you even when you can't break out of your wee tantrum modes of discourse with others.
If you choose to put your big boy trousers on at some point and ask me a grown-up, respectful question then I will respond in kind. If not then you will remain Nickerless Gasbag!

Stop reversing things you rebel! It's Ninja Quark not 'quark ninja.' I think 'quark ninja' was the Ferengi bar owner on Deep Space 9! — universeness

I watched, coincidentally, a Star Trek Voyager episode, with captain Picard. In search for a vaccine the team ended up in a fight between the crew member with short blond hair and a black planet habitant. Both women, equipped with artificial hands with sharp pins with poison tips...