I would find it very uncomfortable to call "agreement between prediction and outcome" science, as opposed to just a fact about science. — AmadeusD
Science is a method for ascertaining facts about hte world. Facts about science are plainly different things? — AmadeusD
I would find it very uncomfortable to call "agreement between prediction and outcome" science, as opposed to just a fact about science. — AmadeusD
This is a non sequitur that does not relate to the discussion. — AmadeusD
Picking up the award is not acting a play out. Presenting your findings at a conference is not carrying out experiments under controlled conditions. — AmadeusD
Art has no right/wrong value. It has good/bad value (and subjective, at that). Science is the opposite. It has right/wrong values, and no good/bad values. — AmadeusD
I don't recognize anything in the above in my account. I think you've jumped some massive guns here and landed somewhere entirely alien to both what I've said, and what I intended to convey. — AmadeusD
Can we see, herein, that right and wrong is concerned with what things are, whereas good and bad is concerned with the moral meaning of how things are experienced? — ucarr
No, not at all. I don't actually see how what you've said is at all illustrative of this point, ignoring that I think the point is extremely weak and bordering on nonsensical. — AmadeusD
"Miracle" here is used casually and sophistically, but the above fact does not leave ample scope for miracles in a Humean sense either. — Lionino
Do you deny the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle was worked out as a math inequality?I can't work with Quora quotations. — Lionino
...the idea that consciousness is subjective, but science is objective, and therefore we can't have a science about consciousness, conflates two different senses of 'subjective'.
Consciousness is ontologically subjective as it exists only for the one who has it, but that doesn't mean epistemically subjective. We can be conscious of science, and we can have science about the conscious states of individual organisms. — jkop
a fact about the world, say, electrolysis, — ucarr
We are allowed to segregate facts about the world into different categories, are we not? — ucarr
the discovery, when made, lies outside of science? — ucarr
How can this be a non sequitur to a discussion when it responds to a topic you introduced into the discussion? — ucarr
How is it you're not confusing relevance with identity? Give me an argument that shows how an award for an acting performance doesn't relate to the acting performance.How can one thing be an award, i.e., recognition, for another thing it doesn't relate to? — ucarr
Art has no right/wrong value. Art has no moral content — ucarr
Things are ⇒
⇒
facts, or truth. — ucarr
How sentient beings respond to truth introduces morals. — ucarr
I'm unsure of the meaning of "cross-culturalism" in this context. — ucarr
It's not the case simplicity of theory is a strategy for achieving the best outcomes? — ucarr
I don't think the outcomes of cancer research are matters of indifference to the researchers. — ucarr
Are the plays of Shakespeare culture bound? — ucarr
The culture-bound, policy-driving forces of Mein Kampf aren't a problem? — ucarr
Pseudo-intellectualism is looking like the most probably explanation of this person's writing. — I like sushi
That seems a bit much to me. I think confusing similar concepts is enough to explain. ucarr appears very thoughtful to me, and wanting to engage - I tend to see a lack of wanting to engage with pseudo-intellectualism (couple of other threads active rn are dead-on examples). I tend favour incompetence instead of maliciousness or deceptiveness to explain these things :P Perhaps I'm a bit sanguine as to this. — AmadeusD
We can research and compare the mental states that arise when I listen to the two styles of music, e.g. notice if my toes tap to the rhythms, check my dopamine levels, brain activity etc. and correlate the results with my reports. That's — jkop
Do you buy the existence of humanity as a miracle of improbability? — ucarr
Do you deny the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle was worked out as a math inequality? — ucarr
It's not a cop-out to assume everyone posting there incompetent? — ucarr
Will they ever be able to say "the firing of this specific number of these neurons in this part of the brain will produce this specific intensity of this emotion"? — Gregory
I'm sure you are right, at least in a forum like this.I tend favour incompetence instead of maliciousness or deceptiveness to explain these things — AmadeusD
I do understand how annoying it can be when someone pronounces authoritatively about something I know about but they clearly don't. It is particularly tempting in philosophy because the range of competence one would like to have is way beyond what is possible for most human beings. The big difficulty is that one has to have competence in a field in order to assess how authoritative a source is.My issue is not with Quora, but more that you don't seem to be competent with physics in a way that you are in a position to judge good from bad in non-authoritative sources. — Lionino
This was an interesting attempt at the same sort of distinction. Every subject asks "What, Where, When" (and sometimes "Who") and so it is tempting to go for a distinction in terms of subject-matter. "How" and "Why" are traditionally (in philosophy) used to distinguish between causal and rational explanations, so they look like a good basis for distinguishing between science and the rest. But ordinary use does not follow the Aristotelian distinction between efficient and final causes, so I doubt if there's any mileage in this.The sciences are concerned with “what,” whereas the humanities are concerned with “how.” — ucarr
I liked this. I agree that most disciplines are partly characterized by their domains of authority and partly by the methods they adopt. There's a link between the two, which helps.Yes, it means that science is an epistemic domain governed by a justification method. It really does not matter what exactly it is about as long as the justification method of testability can successfully be applied.
The same is true for mathematics. It is the epistemic domain governed by the justification method of axiomatic provability.
The humanities, on the other hand, are not an epistemic domain. They are a (collection of) subject domain(s). The humanities are generally about human behavior. — Tarskian
The big difficulty is that one has to have competence in a field in order to assess how authoritative a source is — Ludwig V
The big difficulty is that one has to have competence in a field in order to assess how authoritative a source is. — Ludwig V
I don't need to know neuroscience to have the common sense to not take at face value a research paper (which isn't made for laymen) from 2011 with 2 citations and 1 no-name researcher. — Lionino
Competence is over-stating it, I agree. But you are expecting more from common sense than it will deliver.In practice, that is not true. Competence in the field is not required, just common sense. — Lionino
Certainly. But I'm not Joe Public, who will say "If it is by a professor, it must be right and anything from a university is OK. Where is Utrecht? How do I find out which courses it's used on? Didn't someone once tell me that science textbooks are always out of date by the time they are printed?"A physics textbook by a professor from Utretch, used in physics courses internationally, is authoritative, a researcher's blogspot is not. — Lionino
That may be common sense to you and common sense to me. But it doesn't follow that it is common sense to everyone.I don't need to know neuroscience to have the common sense to not take at face value a research paper (which isn't made for laymen) from 2011 with 2 citations and 1 no-name researcher. — Lionino
Ideally, I would do all experiments myself. But life's too short. I'm sure you agree.In that sense, we can say that: if who makes the claim matters, then what he claims cannot possibly matter. — Tarskian
Well, that's clear enough. What do you do for fun?If the field does not have an objective justification method, then such original research is not a knowledge claim to begin with. In that case, no publication by whoever is authoritative. — Tarskian
Will they ever be able to say "the firing of this specific number of these neurons in this part of the brain will produce this specific intensity of this emotion"? — Gregory
Sometimes i'll feel two different feelings while making a choice and they feel equally strong yet I definitely want one over the other for which reason i have no explanation. — Gregory
But you are expecting more from common sense than it will deliver. — Ludwig V
But it doesn't follow that it is common sense to everyone. — Ludwig V
Didn't someone once tell me that science textbooks are always out of date by the time they are printed? — Ludwig V
H'm. In respect of physics, you may be right. In respect of other matters, I'm not so sure. We all worry about fake news, don't we? This is where it originates. And it matters.Democratisation of knowledge wasn't the best blessing to this world. Now we have literal idiots on Twitter quoting psychometric papers to prove their case when they don't even know what a p-value is, and unfortunately such rubbish gets exposed to thousands of naïve people. But it is not like those people matter in the big picture often, so it is not too bad. — Lionino
I wouldn't dream of contradicting you. But it was a comment from a guy who qualified in physics before switching to philosophy (of science) for his Master's. He also told me that everything in the physics A-Level (School leaving) syllabus was false.Science books? Sometimes. Textbooks? That would defeat the purpose. Joe must exercise his common sense. — Lionino
You were fortunate. Mine was not. I had some nasty awakenings when I was young. I'm still very sceptical about what common sense tells me. But then, I'm also sceptical about what everyone tells me.I don't know, my common sense has delivered to me consistently. — Lionino
Well, the world before the enlightenment ideal was not exactly ideal either.Democratisation of knowledge wasn't the best blessing to this world. — Lionino
Perhaps part of the trouble is that many researchers are anxious to spread their news as widely as possible. Whether they are after fame or fortune or just research grants, I wouldn't know.More specifically, when it comes to Joe Public, he has no business touching research papers or textbooks or things of the sort. Most people can't solve a basic quadratic equation, and have never really heard of Kant. — Lionino
He also told me that everything in the physics A-Level (School leaving) syllabus was false. — Ludwig V
Perhaps part of the trouble is that many researchers are anxious to spread their news as widely as possible. — Ludwig V
As of yet, I am still unsure what you are saying and starting to think that you do not really have a clear idea of what you mean due to misapplication of terms and heuristic bias. — I like sushi
If we want to know what something is, objectively, we turn to science.
If we want to know what it's like, subjectively, to walk a mile in another person's shoes, we turn to art.
These are two profoundly different states: the "what" versus the "how." — ucarr
I have a feeling you are confusing yourself by interchanging Why, How and What without appreciating that they are ALL What questions. This then lead to you holding to How for one line of questioning where it suits you whilst holding to Why for another (even though - to repeat - they are BOTH What questions). — I like sushi
I acknowledged this overlap long ago. Now, it's your turn to argue the point that overlap obliterates difference.
Discovery of "what" is rooted in the predication of the fact of existing things.
Discovery of "how" is rooted in the adverbial modification of the predication of the fact of existing things. This adverbial modification elaborates both the effect and the affect of the fact of existing things. To the main point, "how" drags consciousness into the frame of the lens of discovery. — ucarr
I'm glad to hear that. But you did say "literal idiots on Twitter quoting psychometric papers".I don't see researchers going on Youtube or Twitter to talk about their research, they are usually too busy for that. It is usually the university's journal (sometimes written by students) that writes the news pieces. Then we have MSM reporting on it, which is the bottom of the barrel. — Lionino
Do you buy the existence of humanity as a miracle of improbability? — ucarr
That is the fine-tuning problem and most secular philosophers don't think it is a miracle (I am taking "miracle" here to mean intelligent design or sheer chance (~40%)). — Lionino
Do you deny the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle was worked out as a math inequality? — ucarr
No. The HUP still is not about the "limits of quantised physical interactions". It has a clear physical meaning. — Lionino
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.