BIP 2013: Post production shuffle.

[Cuddlefish]

I wish you were in my classes.

Dude... Peoples' heads would explode.

But, seriously, I'm getting sick of this "open mind" shit people keep giving me.

Like, if you offered me a baloney sandwich, and I said that I didn't like baloney, you wouldn't respond with "OMGWTF have an open mind!!1!"

But with some meaningless metaphysical shit, unfalsifiable claim, or general mistake in basic logic (and in a lot of cases, music and movies as well) people get all bent the fuck out, like suddenly I'm not entitled to parse it out for my own self.

"You gotta learn to keep an open mind, man" reads, to me, more like "I have the right for you to see things my way."

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

My least favorite is when people say "well you never really know for sure..." about some whacknoodle bullshit  that has no basis in reality. OK, maybe I don't know FOR SURE but when there's a significant amount of evidence and ALL of it points to "your claim is utter bullshit", where do you place your bet?

[Cuddlefish]

My least favorite is when people say "well you never really know for sure..." about some whacknoodle bullshit  that has no basis in reality. OK, maybe I don't know FOR SURE but when there's a significant amount of evidence and ALL of it points to "your claim is utter bullshit", where do you place your bet?

Yadude. Folk like that didn't understand their Karl Popper and Tom Khun (nit sure if you guys would have to read them or not?), or rather they're deliberately over-stretching the ideas in a piss-poor attempts to cover up bad reasoning.

[LMNO]

What you need is the HAMMER OF RATIONALITY™.

[Q. G. Pennyworth]

What you need is the HAMMER OF RATIONALITY™.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

My least favorite is when people say "well you never really know for sure..." about some whacknoodle bullshit  that has no basis in reality. OK, maybe I don't know FOR SURE but when there's a significant amount of evidence and ALL of it points to "your claim is utter bullshit", where do you place your bet?

Yadude. Folk like that didn't understand their Karl Popper and Tom Khun (nit sure if you guys would have to read them or not?), or rather they're deliberately over-stretching the ideas in a piss-poor attempts to cover up bad reasoning.

I'm a science major, I ain't gotta read shit. 

Actually that is patently untrue, but apparently I don't have to read much by way of philosophy. I did take a Philosophy of Science class, but I don't recall who authored the book, a very expensive very slim volume I later made the mistake of lending to someone who, naturally, never returned it.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

These are my books for this term. One could argue that "understanding architecture" is philosophy.



A completely unrelated note: Not only have I taken Philosophy of Science, but also every science intro class includes a day or two on scientific method. All of them, hard or soft sciences, every single one. Six intro classes so far, and I thought I was done... and then realized that I still have to take physics 201.

There is no getting out alive.

[Cuddlefish]

But, to move towards a personal point, the type of people that require you entertain any possibility simply because of the probabilistic nature of induction can be accounted for by their misunderstanding of certain concepts put forth by Thomas Kuhn and, a touch earlier, the ideas of David Hume.

Kuhn, in the most rudimentary version of his position, states that subjectivity cannot be entirely removed from the process of theory choice when confronted with two opposing theories that are (at least, superficially) equally valid. (Origianlly in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 1962, further explained in his essay 'Objectivity, Value Judgments, and Theory Choice,' a short time later)

This argument relates to other earlier arguments regarding, what is termed now, the 'problem of induction.' Namely, certain arguments found in David Hume's 'Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding,' (Again, my reductionist version) where he illustrates that knowledge based on a posteriori, inductive proofs cannot provide certainty, only a degree of probability.

Now, in both the realms of science and philosophy (I try not to make such a clear division between the two) these ideas are read and understood in a particular way which, despite the lack of certainty and objectivity, allow meaningful scientific discovery and inquiry to still be possible.

The breakdown that allows for these 'believers of all possibilities' to perceive themselves to be on solid foundations when making such trivial assertions comes into play when these ideas, initially discussed within the philosophical/scientific circles and communities, where they are understood in a very distinct way, become translated in a socio-cultural sense, where these ideas are understood in a very different way.

This 'different way' operates under, what I call, the fallacy or doctrine of 'Apparent Dualism,' which requires the indoctrinated to assume that all things have a corollary that is, in essence, directly in opposition to that thing. They see 'subjective' to be directly opposed to 'objective,' therefore, the intrinsic subjectivity found in theory choice negates the possibility of objectivity (when, really, they tend to support one another). Therefore, to them, all reality has been rendered 'subjective.' Similarly, the indoctrinated see 'certainty' to have a polar opposite of 'uncertainty.' Therefore, to them, the probabilistic nature of induction is rendered as wholly 'uncertain.' The combination of the above can 'allow' a person to say things like "You can't say for sure X. therefore I'm justified in my belief of not X." Further, the integration of subjective value judgment into the previously 'objective' sciences also 'allows' these people to determine that all things are merely subjective, and choosing a correct theory is simply a matter of personal preference.

While we can easily suggest that the source of this miscommunication is, possibly, a misunderstanding of things like probabilities, or the meanings of the words 'objective' and 'subjective,' I would suggest that these misunderstandings are the product of the Doctrine of Apparent Dualism.

What you need is the HAMMER OF RATIONALITY™.

Yeah, while it may feel good to drop the hammer (though, I prefer to think of rationality more as a tomahawk), from a pragmatic viewpoint, it doesn't accomplish much.

[Kai]

A completely unrelated note: Not only have I taken Philosophy of Science, but also every science intro class includes a day or two on scientific method. All of them, hard or soft sciences, every single one. Six intro classes so far, and I thought I was done... and then realized that I still have to take physics 201.

There is no getting out alive.

You will live the Scientific Method, you will sweat it, you will breathe it, and you will /like it/.

My least favorite is when people say "well you never really know for sure..." about some whacknoodle bullshit  that has no basis in reality. OK, maybe I don't know FOR SURE but when there's a significant amount of evidence and ALL of it points to "your claim is utter bullshit", where do you place your bet?

Yadude. Folk like that didn't understand their Karl Popper and Tom Khun (nit sure if you guys would have to read them or not?), or rather they're deliberately over-stretching the ideas in a piss-poor attempts to cover up bad reasoning.

Most people have no idea who those people are, much less what they were discussing. Sad but true.

[Cuddlefish]

Most people have no idea who those people are, much less what they were discussing. Sad but true.

I was actually a little surprised to hear that they aren't as widely taught outside of philosophy.

Although, while you're here, Kai, I would like to hear your assessment of my prior post, seeing that you have a different relationship to science than I do and could perhaps correct or elaborate on certain things I may have completely overlooked.

Dimo, P.O.S. (Philosopher of Science/Piece of Shit)

[LMNO]

Yeah, while it may feel good to drop the hammer (though, I prefer to think of rationality more as a tomahawk), from a pragmatic viewpoint, it doesn't accomplish much.

Bitches don't know about your rationality.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

A completely unrelated note: Not only have I taken Philosophy of Science, but also every science intro class includes a day or two on scientific method. All of them, hard or soft sciences, every single one. Six intro classes so far, and I thought I was done... and then realized that I still have to take physics 201.

There is no getting out alive.

You will live the Scientific Method, you will sweat it, you will breathe it, and you will /like it/.

I stopped counting the library research trainings. I couldn't begin to tell you how many of those I've been to. I just found out I have another one next week.

Two things I will come out of this with for sure, I will know the Scientific Method and I damn well will know how to look shit up.  

[Cuddlefish]

Ergh... Eris is against me. Had a whole bunch of time set aside to do some work today, but the fucking printer is out of ink (It's actually not, it's just trying to extort me into buying new ink cartridges, even though they aren't completely empty)... I'm going to try to see if anyone I know has a functioning printer, if not, we're just going to have to add another week to the damn thing. Sonova...

[Cuddlefish]

Ugh... I guess the good news here is that, after reviewing all the proposed corrections, it seems like it should go quickly once I get my hands on a functioning printer... pfah...

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Ugh... I guess the good news here is that, after reviewing all the proposed corrections, it seems like it should go quickly once I get my hands on a functioning printer... pfah...

Do you have a printing stipend on the school computers? I have found that it's cheaper than using my own printer.