aa05d14f
XPost: alt.philosophy, talk.philosophy.misc, alt.atheism
XPost: alt.christnet
From: always@ask.questions
On 26/12/2012 2:41 AM, Immortalist wrote:
> On Dec 25, 8:56 am, TheInquirer wrote:
>> why no? if the null hypothesis is used to support the null hypothesis,
>> isn't that circular argument? and wouldn't this procedure increase
>> dogmatic bias?
>>
>
> possible worlds
can there be more than two possible worlds?
is there a way to tell if our world is the same as one of the possible
worlds?
if A and not A are both possible, why should i prefer one over the other?
is it also possible that there can be a higher view that explains
two or more seemingly contradictory views?
>> i thought null hypotheses are set up to be rejected, in a
>> sort of probabilistic "prove by contradiction" manner?
>>
>
> No.
you are not referring to standard statistical procedures, are you?
it is really a test of how well the theory makes any other theory
> less likely
or even impossible. We must tighten our hypothesis in ways
> that make the null alternatives less likely or even impossible. Once
> the remaining counter-theories sound
supernatural
what is supernatural? isn't it just knowledge / technology that is
currently not known?
our hypothesis
> become null-proofed.
> To determine whether a statement is logically necessary or logically
> impossible, it is importanHo understand the meaning of the statement
> as clearly as possible.
fully agreed.
so are there a universally agreed definitions of the terms "deity" and
"supernatural"?
>>>> worse still, if the null hypothesis is accepted at x% level
>>>> of significance, do we know the actual probability that it
>>>> is mistaken?
>>
>>> If matters remain at the level of denial and simple assertion, we have
>>> arrived at an impasse, and neither party to the dispute can claim
>>> victory. It is essential that we move beyond this level of
>>> argumentation.
>>
>> precisely my point.
>>
>
> No.
it was meant to be a question to spur thinking and discussion. i'm
not sure standard statistical procedures are epistemologically sound.
are they?
The impasse is created by people trying to force each other to
> accept some propositions without any evidence to support them.
it's worse if the definitions are fuzzy, isn't it?
> A direct challenge to the sceptic's contention that nothing can be
> known with certainty.
not sure if that's my brand of scepticism or skepticism.
> Coherence theory: "An empirical belief is realatively true if and only
> if it coheres with a system of other beliefs, which together form a
> comprehensive account of reality."
i'm not a professional philosopher (obviously), but i have heard of this
one. i might be using a little of this.
>
> Stephen J. Gould, the Harvard Paleontologist, offers this definition:
> In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it
> would be perverse to withhold provisional assent."
what is "perverse"? is the scientific community the final judge? what
if other communities (not necessarily uniformed or unintelligent, but
just happened to have chosen a different career path) disagree?
are there ways to proof against in-breeding? are there ways to proof
against lack of academic freedom (e.g. pressure from employers, funding
agencies)?
> Succesfully Competitive Inductive Cogency:
> Depends upon the evidential and conceptual ("context") of reasoning.
> An inductive argument from evidence to hypothesis is inductively
> cogent if and only if the hypothesis is that hypothesis which, of all
> the competing hypothesis, has the greatest probability of being true
> on the basis of the evidence.
this one ... looks promising. might be what i am intuitively trying
to do without knowing the technical term for it.
question: how do i assign probability?
[ note: if one reads textbooks on probability written by mathematicians
and statisticians but not those written by scientists and engineers, one
would find that probability and randomness is only defined
axiomatically. there can be different probability measures. ]
It can be open ended and go
> on forever or it can become circular where each support depending on
> the last leads to the same supports over time. This is how scepticism
> defeated foundationalism. It seems that all we were left with a hope
> for escape from this dilemma of no certain knowledge is a modified
> version of the circular argument. Instead of a linear regress of
> justifiactions we seek a nonlinear context of groups of evidences or
> propositions emerging more evidence than other means of gaining
> supports from evidences and propositions. Though we close the circle,
> different circlular arguments, corespond to, predict, and manilulate,
> events in the world, than other such arguments. If we have a
> competition amoungst such partial certainties, we gain at least the
> best knowledge we can find.
how about trying to find a synthesis among competing axiom sets?
> Quine's Web of Beliefs
>
but we cannot
> rule out the possibility that some observations will require sweeping
> changes in the web.
... that leads a few people to a mode of intense questioning?
> Thus, these philosophers give certain beliefs a privileged place in
> the web. They are protected by something like a one-way glass.
examples?
>> Just answer the damn question, not the questioner! Don't
>> presume. My personal matters/beliefs are none of your
>> business. I ask, you answer. If you think my questions
>> are stupid, you have already proven that you are stupid,
>> not me. If you don't know the answer, can you please
>> "pass" to more capable person(s) to answer?
>
> Offensive
so?
and detracts from the little persuasiveness
what position am i peddling?
> You cannot win.
win what?
--
I ask, becos I'm curious.
[ since you have been providing useful leads for my questions,
i take it off, just for you. OK?]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
