My Philosophy Teacher: A Probabilistic Study of Science

[DaveC426913]

People who are obtuse don't pretend to be obtuse. They strive to be acute.

While that's an interesting corollary, it has nothing to do with what I said. My claim is not that you are obtuse, but that you're not, but are pretending to be - deliberately taking the wrong meaning. Your comment above does not address that at all.

Dave, I posted the definition of argumentative. Amazingly, you quoted it and had it right in front of you when posting your mis-definition of it. Derisive and dismissive are not synonymous with argumentative.

Yes, because an entry in one dictionary, chosen by you, definitively determines how a word can be used to convey meaning in the English language.

Seriously Zoob, this is beneath you. Don't make me invoke the "T"-word.

Where do you draw the line and stop holding your breath? Should Einstein not have written GR because there's a non-zero possibility he'll look like a fool sometime between now and 10,000 years from now for not having forseen the Big Gravity Change? Does Newton look like a fool because he did not remotely anticipate Einstein?

We don't draw the line. The student must ask themselves where the line is drawn, instead of just taking it for granted because everyone tells him so. That's the lesson here.

The lesson is completely lost when you apply it to something that has a minuscule probability of happening.

Tell me something. How do you know it has a miniscule probability of happening?

Got a link? What school of psychology is this you're getting your info from?
...
OK. I guess I have to spoon feed you once again.

These are as desperate as pretending you own the definition and usage of a word. Don't stoop to "T"-like tactics.Look, I think we've beaten this up enough. I don't refute your viewpoint outright; only the prof knows what she really means, and each of us is entitled to interpret as best we can. I just think you are being needlessly dismissive of this lesson and sowing distrust.

Were the OP to agree with your viewpoint, I think a valuable lesson would be lost. You disagree. Fair enough. Let's be done before one of us says something they regret.

 

[zoobyshoe]

While that's an interesting corollary, it has nothing to do with what I said. My claim is not that you are obtuse, but that you're not, but are pretending to be - deliberately taking the wrong meaning. Your comment above does not address that at all.

I know it's not your claim. I did not ascribe it to you. It's my claim. I'm telling you I'm not that bright. If my posts seem acute in any way, it's because I spend so long writing and checking them. Don't worry about me pretending to be obtuse. I'm too busy pretending to be acute.

Yes, because an entry in one dictionary, chosen by you, definitively determines how a word can be used to convey meaning in the English language.

I'm not wedded to that dictionary. If you have a dictionary that defines argumentative as dismissive and derisive, appealing to emotion rather than reason, I'll allow that you were 100% OK in using it that way. Otherwise, I'm faced with the surreal thought that you may think it's OK for people to make up their own personal definitions of words.

Seriously Zoob, this is beneath you. Don't make me invoke the "T"-word.

I don't know what the "T' word is, but I observe it's not beneath you to try and appeal to emotion rather than reason. Which is both ironic and hypocritical.

We don't draw the line. The student must ask themselves where the line is drawn, instead of just taking it for granted because everyone tells him so. That's the lesson here.

No. The philosophy teacher IS drawing a line. The line separates that which is secure from that which isn't. She draws the line such that everything you can possibly think of is on the insecure side. Don't even take gravity for granted. She is not saying: judge for yourself where it's OK to feel secure about knowledge. She is definitely saying: you can't be sure of anything.

Tell me something. How do you know it has a miniscule probability of happening?

The same way you know.

Look, I think we've beaten this up enough. I don't refute your viewpoint outright; only the prof knows what she really means, and each of us is entitled to interpret as best we can. I just think you are being needlessly dismissive of this lesson and sowing distrust.

Were the OP to agree with your viewpoint, I think a valuable lesson would be lost. You disagree. Fair enough. Let's be done before one of us says something they regret.

I can't let it go with you summing up by misrepresenting me: I am not dismissing the lesson. I stated explicitly that the lesson, as you stated it, it is not in dispute. Here again, as I remarked the last time we had one of these extended dialogs, it's like you're not even reading what I write. I said, explicitly "Not in dispute," and you, never-the-less characterize me as dismissing it.

I am, also, not "sowing distrust". I am expressing distrust. The former implies some larger devious agenda which isn't there.

I certainly don't mind if you don't buy my take on her statement. What's bothering me is the strong sense I'm getting that you feel my take must be squelched in favor of yours. The tactic of trying to inspire guilt with things like "Shame on you! You're better than that! That's beneath you!" are "hallmarks" as you put it, of an intensity that strikes me as irrational under the circumstances. Between her statements and what he reported about her reputation, I think you blindly risk condemning him to a semester of science-bashing, which really wouldn't help anyone.

 

[zoobyshoe]

The problem is that since we re-use terms so often (I think the word 'energy' alone has more than ten different interpretations) for many different purposes, this is such a huge cause for confusion and debate.

This is what got Wittgenstein all balled up, He chose a word that has a huge number of meanings and tried to extrapolate some sort of 'core' sense of the word that still encompassed all the meanings. Unfortunately, using it in one sense can rule out its meaning in another sense. Paralysis. But it's an artificial problem that arises only when you try to do something of that nature. In every day circumstances, people are rarely confused by the word.

The English language is exceptionally prone to fast evolution. I learned in a thread here a couple years back that most other languages aren't nearly as fast changing. That being the case, I don't think dedicated definitions; one word, one definition, would help. Any word you create in English is prone to quick branching.

I also don't agree that things can't be defined precisely, as Feynman asserted. I think he, himself, may have been at a loss sometimes, but that is because he wasn't much of a word-guy. He was very much prone to casual speech. There are a lot of physicists who were impressively articulate, even on non-physics topics, so this is not a problem with physicists as a group. Feynman's manner of expressing himself was what you'd call "down to earth". I don't imagine he had a copy of "Elements of Style".

So, I don't actually think there is any serious definition problem. The gap in understanding can probably always be ascribed to the unavoidable difference in experiences between any two given people or groups of people. Having had my particular life experiences I am ultimately unable to grasp things the way you grasp them, and visa versa. The shared fact of being human assures some overlap only.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I learned in a thread here a couple years back that most other languages aren't nearly as fast changing. That being the case, I don't think dedicated definitions; one word, one definition, would help. Any word you create in English is prone to quick branching.

When reading this I couldn't help but be reminded of...

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

The nicest thing about standards is that there are so many of them to choose from.
-Ken Olsen

 

[DaveC426913]

I'm not wedded to that dictionary. If you have a dictionary that defines argumentative as dismissive and derisive,

I never said being argumentative is being derisive or dismissive, I said being derisive or dismissive is being argumentative. Argumentative is a super-set, a general word that describes any number of tactics, two of which I accused you of. That's why your attempt to constrain me by a definition of a general term does not apply. You suggest there is only one way of being argumentative.

I can't let it go with you summing up by misrepresenting me: I am not dismissing the lesson. I stated explicitly that the lesson, as you stated it, it is not in dispute. Here again, as I remarked the last time we had one of these extended dialogs, it's like you're not even reading what I write. I said, explicitly "Not in dispute," and you, never-the-less characterize me as dismissing it.

OK, you got me. Then I am completely flummoxed as to what your stance really is.

I think you blindly risk condemning him to a semester of science-bashing

How on Earth can you see it as science-bashing?

If, as you indicate above you see the lesson as valid, then how can you assign it such a destructive effect?

I guess, to me, that's the crux of the discussion. Some people see the comment 'remember, science must never get cocky about its conclusions' as an attack, others see it as wisdom.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I never said being argumentative is being derisive or dismissive, I said being derisive or dismissive is being argumentative. Argumentative is a super-set, a general word that describes any number of tactics, two of which I accused you of. That's why your attempt to constrain me by a definition of a general term does not apply. You suggest there is only one way of being argumentative.

OK. This is much more clear, and I believe I can follow your train of reasoning. You are not saying that argumentative is defined as: dismissive and derisive. You are, however, saying that whenever we encounter a derisive and dismissive person it is correct to call them argumentative.

If that's what you're saying, though, it is not the case. Argumentative means:

1.fond of or given to argument and dispute; disputatious; contentious:

"The law students were an unusually argumentative group".

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/argumentative

Therefore, a person could be both derisive and dismissive without also being argumentative. It could well be that a person is derisive and dismissive and also argumentative, all at the same time, during an argument, but two former qualities would be completely incidental to the latter. The derision and dismissal is not what makes them argumentative. What makes them argumentative is a proneness to argue. Period. There's just nothing in the definition that requires a certain class of tactics. All that is necessary to call a person argumentative is that they be "fond of or given to argument and dispute; disputatious, contentious." Consider: A person might only open his mouth once a day to make a derisive or dismissive remark, and never push it into an argument or dispute. The notion that whether or not a person is argumentative depends on the tactics they use is some kind of red herring you've been sidetracked into following somehow. A person could be argumentative without ever using a remotely negative tactic, by simply chronically, but politely, challenging anything anyone says (their motive being, for instance, they just really enjoy debates).

OK, you got me. Then I am completely flummoxed as to what your stance really is...

...How on Earth can you see it as science-bashing?

If, as you indicate above you see the lesson as valid, then how can you assign it such a destructive effect?

I guess, to me, that's the crux of the discussion. Some people see the comment 'remember, science must never get cocky about its conclusions' as an attack, others see it as wisdom.

"Remember, science must never get cocky about its conclusions" is an elementary lesson that I don't dispute. Any time you hold it up as a good lesson, I don't dispute it. This lesson you keep holding up, though, is not what the teacher seems to be teaching. Instead she seems to be criticizing science for not having learned this lesson. She says: "Science is dependent, therefore, on the probabilistic nature of its observations in supposing them to be definite." That "in supposing them to be definite" claims that science supposes its observations are the last word. It 'informs' the student who reads it that science thinks its conclusions are set, when, in fact, they are merely probable. The message is: don't be cocky like scientists are, be a philosopher instead: doubt everything you think you know, including gravity. That clause, "in supposing them to be definite," ought to have raised your hackles, because we all know science doesn't do that. Hence the remarks about science-bashing. I have never disputed the lesson you point to, I have disputed that the teacher is teaching that lesson. Her lesson seems to be: Science is cocky, Philosophy is humble and circumspect.

"…in supposing them to be definite."

 

[zoobyshoe]

When reading this I couldn't help but be reminded of...

Yep. That old saying:" Nothing compounds a problem like a solution."

 

[hyle]

Moonbar. Are we talking about inductive or deductive arguments. With a deductive argument, if the premises are true, and the argument valid (put together the right way), the the conclusion is certain. You are correct to point out that thee are missing premises, but the word to try to clarify is "definite." Would it be true to say that scientific theories are definitely probable? Hmmm.