George Bush is Today's Churchill...

[Five-hole]

Originally posted by Flame Of Liberty@Sep 29 2004, 02:29 AM
What I am trying to say is that there is one truth. There may be several `understandings` of the truth, however the truth itself does not depend on a human, because facts are result of "natural laws" such as for example "time is scarce" that are a priori true and cannot be proved wrong logically. Thus facts are independent of humans and work even if no one is prepared to acknowledge them. Im not sure where relativists see the problem?

Actually, that's wrong. There's no such thing as a fact that exists independently of an observer. Let's take "time is scarce" for example. Time is a human concept we use on several levels -- the average person uses it to delineate their day, physicists use it for god knows what (I don't pretend to be a scientist -- some relativity stuff etc.). However, there is no such thing as 'time' persay, just as there is no such thing as 'length' -- we artificially and arbitrarily impose linguistic barriers on time and then call it an 'hour', or an 'evening', or an 'event'. There is no universal clock ticking off the nanoseconds into eternity. There is no 'time' out there to be found.

Furthermore, scarcity is a far easier concept in which to reveal its intrinsic 'humanness'. Scarcity, unlike time, is a relative term. Therefore, it has to be compared to something. What is the only thing that can compare two things? You got it -- an observer. The phrase 'time is scarce' only makes sense if you have an idea what 'scarcity' means, and you can only know what that means if you have something that is abundant to compare it to. If time is scarce, that means it is MORE scarce (or less abundant) than some other thing -- let's say oil, just to keep this marginally on topic.

As such, the phrase 'time is scarce' is not only not a fact -- it wasn't a fact even before I began this post, it is a judgment -- it is a phrase that is entirely meaningless without a linguistic consciousness to interpret the "world" and then make this judgment.

In regards to a later post in this thread, about the tree falling in the forest -- you're missing the point entirely. Yes, the scientific mechanisms are probably still in effect if no one is around to hear the noise a falling tree makes. The point of that thought experiment is, what is a sound that doesn't have an observer? You can't just say "it's a compression of air waves moving through space", because that doesn't mean anything to our discussion. A sound only becomes a sound once it is heard -- there are untold numbers of compressed air waves moving through space that are never heard. But there has never been a sound that was not heard.

[octothorp]

But you're using a limited definition of fact which limits it to anything that is within human knowledge (knowledge itself being a very sticky term). And that's a completely acceptable definition of fact; except that FoL was using 'fact' as a subset of 'truth'-- a fact is anything that is true. So ignore the word 'fact' for a moment. Now, do you think that truth is limited to the realm of human knowledge, or can truths exist independent of humanity?

I find so much of epistemology to be obsessed with word games, playing with the definition of 'sound', for example, to try and provoke interesting results.

[Five-hole]

I'm not really into epistemology either; I almost went into it but then decided not to go down the road of "it's not clear whether we can know anything about the world anyway". It's an overdone discussion.

As for your question, I think I'll answer it with another question. What is a truth that exists independent of humanity? The problem with a posteriori truths is that they are inherently based on experience and thus cannot be the answer to that -- as experience is obviously human based we can't therefore say the truths established through a posteriori means (e.g. scientific method, observation) are independent of humanity. On the other hand, a priori truths are fundamentally tied to language, another human creation -- for example, "all triangles have three sides" is completely arbitrary given we defined what constitutes a triangle (as well as what a 'side' is and so on). Geometry is a human thought system and is our way of interpreting the universe. Do triangles exist independent of humans? Well, no; things that we call triangles exist whether or not there are humans to talk about them, but so do an infinite number of other things and we arbritrarily created the category of "triangle", assigned common properties to the objects that exist within it, and excluded a bunch of other objects from that category. As such, the a priori truth that "all triangles have three sides" is a truth that is only relevant to human beings and does not exist in the universe.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by Daradon+Sep 29 2004, 08:06 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Daradon @ Sep 29 2004, 08:06 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Sounds a lot like a Lanny McDonald post! :evil: :innocent:

Hey dude has a point. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, and beyond that, there are plenty of educated opinions that counter others. As in life, there are often no easy answers. Writers who suggest that there are, or suggest that if you disagree with them you are automatically wrong, aren't nearly as educated as they think they are. [/b][/quote]
What in God's name are you talking about?

[kermitology]

Wow.. Bush this generations Churchill..

Chruchill's ideas of the intentions of Stalin as well as Hitler were correct.. what has Bush been correct about so far?

[Flame Of Liberty]

Actually, that's wrong. There's no such thing as a fact that exists independently of an observer.

Thats the mistake. Facts do not depend on the observer. On an uninhibited planet where there`s no life, laws of physics dont exist?


Let's take "time is scarce" for example......

I dont think you understand what is meant by time is scarce. Time is scarce even for immortal angels because with every moment in time, they have to decide what to do within this moment, ie you cannot use one moment in time twice. If you spend one hour sleeping, you cannot spend one hour riding a bike. The key koncept here is the opportunity cost - time is scarce because using one hour sleeping is that this one hour for riding a bike is lost - which is precisely what opportunity cost is.


In regards to a later post in this thread, about the tree falling in the forest -- you're missing the point entirely. Yes, the scientific mechanisms are probably still in effect if no one is around to hear the noise a falling tree makes. The point of that thought experiment is, what is a sound that doesn't have an observer? You can't just say "it's a compression of air waves moving through space", because that doesn't mean anything to our discussion. A sound only becomes a sound once it is heard -- there are untold numbers of compressed air waves moving through space that are never heard. But there has never been a sound that was not heard.

Im sure whoever posted the thing about forrest can deffend it himself, but let me try. Yes there is a sound even when it is not heard. That precisely is what I said in my post - the truth is there, even if there is no one to discover it. Sound that is uheard by an observer is truth that is undiscovered. Sound heard by observer is truth (or a fact may be better word) that is discovered.

The whole point of having sciences and theories is to discover facts and truths by using appropriate methotds (for example, in economic theory praxeology, a priorism and methodological individualism).

[Five-hole]

I dont think you understand what is meant by time is scarce. Time is scarce even for immortal angels because with every moment in time, they have to decide what to do within this moment, ie you cannot use one moment in time twice. If you spend one hour sleeping, you cannot spend one hour riding a bike. The key koncept here is the opportunity cost - time is scarce because using one hour sleeping is that this one hour for riding a bike is lost - which is precisely what opportunity cost is.

It doesn't matter if 'time is scarce' is backed up by some economic theory (opportunity cost) or whatever. The point is, the phrase 'time is scarce' AND 'opportunity cost' mean absolutely nothing to the universe. Economic theories reflect the way we look at the world, not the way the world is, and that's a huge distinction. Economics is a particularly bad example because it's a social science describing human behavior. There was no such thing as capitalism before we were around to invent it; there isn't a Big Book of Theories ™ out there that we're looking in to discover capitalism, democracy, relativity, quantum mechanics, and logic. We're making these things up based on patterns we observe in ourselves and in the environment. The important thing to realize is these patterns aren't really there. Seeing a pattern in something is an incredible individual experience -- there is no such thing as a pattern without an observer to notice it.

I'd like you to explain how "if you spend one hour sleeping, you cannot spend one hour riding a bike" proves that 'time is scarce' is not a human phenomenon. Nobody 'uses time' except for human beings -- more important, nobody knows what 'time' is except human beings, and nobody explains their experience of the external world through the concept of time except human beings. Once again, there is no 'time' out there, it's something we've invented.

Im sure whoever posted the thing about forrest can deffend it himself, but let me try. Yes there is a sound even when it is not heard. That precisely is what I said in my post - the truth is there, even if there is no one to discover it. Sound that is uheard by an observer is truth that is undiscovered. Sound heard by observer is truth (or a fact may be better word) that is discovered.

The whole point of having sciences and theories is to discover facts and truths by using appropriate methotds (for example, in economic theory praxeology, a priorism and methodological individualism).

I also disagree completely with the phrase "the point of having sciences and theories is to discover facts and truths using appropriate methods". One of the biggest hurdles in discussing philosophy of this sort is people are incredibly ideologically attached to science and its methods. Unfortunately, the scientific method has been proven to be logically untenable (most notably by Hume). His reasoning for this supports my argument:

The scientific method relies on a continuity of results to 'prove' something. A scientist sets up an experiment that he hopes will prove or disprove his hypothesis and performs it X number of times. In one thousand experiments, he shows that condition A produces condition B. The scientist then says "condition A will always produce condition B, supported by such and such an experiment". Unfortunately for the scientist, as I said above, the pattern of condition A producing condition B was noticed by the scientist. He has fallaciously introduced a causal mechanism between condition A and condition B that does not exist outside of our minds. Just like time, causality -- a system of thought whereby one event is causally determined by the previous event -- is a human thought system and does not reflect the universe in any way: it reflects nothing but our human experience of the universe.

Science can teach us nothing about the universe. It can only reveal the patterns that we observe in the universe and the way in which we interact with the universe. Science does not reveal 'facts', it reveals 'human facts'. For the general populace, calling 'scientific facts' simply 'facts' and accepting their truth works just fine, and nobody pretends to dispute that science isn't useful. But when they get into the realm of saying science reveals the truths of the universe, the philosophers have to jump in and say 'no, not necessarily'. There is no science without humans to perform it, understand it, and interpret its results. Science is relative, just like everything else.

[octothorp]

Well, I like the Karl Popper response to induction (I'm sure you know this, fivehole, but induction being the process we are talking about, determining broad generalizations by observing a sample--in other words, the scientific method): that science is not about establishing the truth of a theory, but rather, about trying hard as we can to prove them to be false. The only a posteriori facts are those of falsification.

[Five-hole]

I would agree with that. I think the problem a lot of people have when they hear arguments about the validity of induction is that they think it's challenging the worth of science, or challenging whether it works or not. It's not doing either -- science both works and is useful. It just doesn't discover capital-T truth; I go a little further with the argument and say that capital-T truth is an impossibility.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Five hole, that is pretty nihilist point of view, kind of like `if nobody saw it, it didn`t happen` and `if 5 people saw it, 5 different things happened.`

It is like arguing the Flames didnt lost the SCF finals, because winning the cup by winning game 7 is only concept of the NHL and in your eyes the Flames won anyways. After all, NHL means absolutely nothing in the universe.


It doesn't matter if 'time is scarce' is backed up by some economic theory (opportunity cost) or whatever. The point is, the phrase 'time is scarce' AND 'opportunity cost' mean absolutely nothing to the universe.

No. It means a lot. Even for planet the time and space is scarce. If Earth is in Solar System, because of opportunity cost it means that at the same time it cannot be in the system of alpha gama whatever.


Economic theories reflect the way we look at the world, not the way the world is, and that's a huge distinction. Economics is a particularly bad example because it's a social science describing human behavior.

Economics is a science that attempts to explain consequences of human action on world of scarcity. The world of scarcity is a fact because of the nature of our universe. Unless you live in parallel universe where it is possible to live several lives simultaneously.


There was no such thing as capitalism before we were around to invent it

Simply put, capitalism is free exchange of property claims. Therefore, when first human traded his stick for a stone, capitalism was discovered, not invented. Because humans do not live isolated, but in societies, their acting takes the form of complex and intertangled relationships. Therefore capitalism stems out of a fact that humans live, and they dont live isolated. To me thats undisputed fact.


We're making these things up based on patterns we observe in ourselves and in the environment.

We`re not making things up. We are trying to understand how `things work` ie to develop a theory based on a priori true claims. If I claim that humans act, dont live isolated, I dont understand what am I making up.


The important thing to realize is these patterns aren't really there. Seeing a pattern in something is an incredible individual experience -- there is no such thing as a pattern without an observer to notice it.

I see a pattern than when I drop a rock, it falls to the ground. If I`m not there to wintess it, does it mean that the rock can fly to the sky and never come back? Gravitation wasnt a fact in our universe before Newton `noticed a pattern?`


I'd like you to explain how "if you spend one hour sleeping, you cannot spend one hour riding a bike" proves that 'time is scarce' is not a human phenomenon. Nobody 'uses time' except for human beings -- more important, nobody knows what 'time' is except human beings, and nobody explains their experience of the external world through the concept of time except human beings. Once again, there is no 'time' out there, it's something we've invented.

Actually I used the example of `immortal angels`, even for them the scarcity of time applies. Just because some beings do not realize time/scarcity of time it does not mean this time/scarcity does not exist. Unless `some being` could live simultaneously in different places, the point stands. Lack of a realization of a fact does not imply the fact itself does not exist. That is where our views differ.


I also disagree completely with the phrase "the point of having sciences and theories is to discover facts and truths using appropriate methods". One of the biggest hurdles in discussing philosophy of this sort is people are incredibly ideologically attached to science and its methods.

That is true, but if a scientist lets his own bias get in his way, he`s no longer a scientist. Thats the problem with many `theories` be it keynesian, socialist and what not (economic theories of course) which is one of reasons that they are not acceptable as theories.


Unfortunately, the scientific method has been proven to be logically untenable (most notably by Hume)...

Huh? If a scientific method is not logically untenable then its not a scietific method. Or are you saying that ALL scienific methods are logically untenable?


The scientific method relies on a continuity of results to 'prove' something. A scientist sets up an experiment that he hopes will prove or disprove his hypothesis and performs it X number of times. In one thousand experiments, he shows that condition A produces condition B........

See thats the point. Experiments (empiricism and what not) are NOT proper methodologies to formulate economic theories. That is why I said in economic theory praxeology, a priorism and methodological individualism are appropriate method. I`ll throw in some links concerning methodology in economics if you want. Theres wide debate as to why methods used in mathematics and physics are not appropriate methods to examine human behaviour.


Science is relative, just like everything else.

Here you go, relativism par excellence Beckwith and Koukl wrote one interesting book called Relativism - Feet firmly planted in mid air. You should check it out.