Ringo Kid's Objections to the Philosophy Forum Guidelines

[ZapperZ]

The trouble is, most (all?) attitudes we take towards the natural world, morality, etc are informed by metaphysical theories that we subscribe to.

Is it right to punish a person for breaking the law? If you subscribe to the theory that everything is deterministic, then you believe the lawbreaker has no choice in the matter, and the lawbreaker isn't really guilty of anything. If you subscribe to the theory that everyone has free will, then the lawbreaker is fully responsible and should be punished.

I don't think that is necessarily true, Tom. I could subscribe to a deterministic world (I don't) and yet, allow for such thing as "emergent" behavior which are not easily explained simply by knowing the intricate details. Furthermore, chaotic behavior allows me to note that even "deterministic" properties can have unpredictable outcomes. So assigning a chain of "cause and effect" would not be that easy and that obvious even if one were to subscribe to such a point of view.

Again, I think it is my fault that this thing has gone into this line of discussion where it should have been better confined to the Philosophy section. So I won't clog up this thread with my posting anymore...

Zz.

 

[quantumdude]

I don't think that is necessarily true, Tom.

Hey, don't look now, but you're philosophizing.

I could subscribe to a deterministic world (I don't) and yet,
(snip)

Sure, I completely realize that I cited two extremes. But these issues are important in shaping one's ideas, and it is a simple fact of life that metaphysical theories pervade all our views of states of affairs in the world. The question is, how good is one's metaphysical theory? Is it logical? Is it contradicted or confirmed by any applicable observations?

The discipline of making a good metaphysical theory is the sort of practice we encourage in the Metaphysics and Epistemology Forum.

 

[Lacy33]

Hey, don't look now, but you're philosophizing.



Sure, I completely realize that I cited two extremes. But these issues are important in shaping one's ideas, and it is a simple fact of life that metaphysical theories pervade all our views of states of affairs in the world. The question is, how good is one's metaphysical theory? Is it logical? Is it contradicted or confirmed by any applicable observations?

The discipline of making a good metaphysical theory is the sort of practice we encourage in the Metaphysics and Epistemology Forum.

Thank you all for this labor of love.
I will try and take away even the smallest amount understanding.
S

 

[RingoKid]

well this is going nowhere fast Tom.

In your last post to me you claim I am wrong a lot but say it is not about being right or wrong so which is it ? Just because you don't understand something doesn't make it wrong.

BTW who said this "if it hasn't been proven false, then it must be true" was it this guy
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html

You haven't shot down anything except the standards you attempt to uphold not being applied fairly. Look at the original thread that started this discourse and tell me where in lies the substantiated evidence from others you claim to need. All I see is personal opinion even many of your posts lack evidence for your claims.

Which is better to show an internalised understanding of the subject matter or cut and paste quotes from reputable sources as evidence, to think creatively within the bounds of a subject or regurgitate data made irrelevant by the current state of the world we live in ?

Where is the logic and reason in instinct and intuition. Is there no room for that in physics or philosophy ?

I completely disagree. Religious pontification is the dogmatic assertion of "truths". These "truths" are asserted without considered argumentation and without evidence, and they are not to be questioned. By any measure, this is a terrible way to stimulate discussion and to exchange insight.

I beg to differ. I say you cannot apply empirical means of support by way of evidence to concepts that lie outside the realm of pure physics ie philosophy/metaphysics. The "truth" should always be questioned it is generally the truthsayer who refuses to be. If religious pontification is what you think I am doing and I invite questioning then bring it on by any measure. I guarantee it will stimulate discussion and exchange insight far more than reading some obsolete dead guy's rantings or posting links, footnotes and bibliographies to subjective perceptions of reputable sources.

Perhaps moderators should qualify their right to pass judgement on philosophical matters by showing evidence of their studies then i might give their opinions some creedence also.

In any case prove me wrong or let's just agree to disagree and move on. I'll try to change my nature but it's hard to change nature in any form.


peace

 

[Les Sleeth]

But this is a cop-out. You're are saying every idea and "convention" that one adopts is "metaphysics". That's like someone telling me that physics is "consciousness", since everything that pops into my head is something that I'm conscious about.

Well, Tom is saying it pretty well, but since I wrote this up I’ll post it anyway.

There is no cop-out. I am saying that every observation (or most) is based on more foundational conditions; metaphysics is concerned with that underpinning thing. Look at how fruitful it has been to understand that relativity and quantum mechanics are part of the foundation of the universe. With every glimpse into creation’s deeper roots, we have better means to understand what is more superficial. That is the value of metaphysical contemplation . . . learning more about the influences behind what’s most apparent.

You are also ignoring another methodology - I could say that physical principles WORK, and STOP at that without going on to the next step at deducing that this "reflects how reality is at its foundation" (whatever that means). I have no compulsion to make that jump, because the moment I do, philosophers are more than happy to jump all over the meaning of the word "reality".

I am not ignoring anything. You certainly can stop at the fact that physical principles WORK, but where you choose to stop thinking about something has nothing to do with the value of what your aren’t thinking about. However, if you have philosophers lurking about waiting to pounce on you, there are anti-stalking laws designed to prevent that.

Which then makes all these metaphysical talk meaningless and an exercise in futility. If no one can know, then you or I or anyone else can make things up as we go along and no one is the wiser. You are extrapolating beyond what we know and can verify.

Do you mind the speculation about string theory? Can you prove the big bang happened, and (since I know you can’t) does that stop you from extrapolating?

What is there to say that there's any degree of validity in what you said? What is there to say your extrapolation is better than another?

Have you ever thought that maybe there is real philosophy, and then there is pseudo-philosophy? Maybe you don’t know about that because when people call their ideas scientific, it is always real science, right? Dude (sorry, it slipped out) there’s no need for competition! Science does its thing with its principles and practices, and philosophy has its principles and practices.

I say, when done properly there cannot be contradiction between the realms (i.e., science and philosophy). Why? This is just my opinion, but I think there is only ONE reality, and if there are conflicting descriptions of some aspect of it, then at least one of those descriptions is probably wrong. I said “probably” because it might also be that physical descriptions are best suited for certain elements of reality, and philosophical descriptions are more suited to other facets, so that what at first appears to be contradictions are really one of the disciplines offering descriptions outside their realm. In fact, possibly that sort of misapplication is what has you turned off to philosophy.

All we have are a bunch of semantics gymnastics in which ill-defined concepts rule the day to allow for enough wiggle room to fit anything.

Geez, first lurking philosophers, and now ill-defined concept tyranny.

As far as I know, and as far as I'm aware of in my interactions with other physicists, philosophy and metaphysics play ZERO role in contributing to the development of physics, at least in the past century, and certainly in our everyday practices. In fact, it is philosophy that had to pick up its tail and catch up with the revolutionary ideas that have come out of modern physics. I'd rather be "dull" than to engage in an exercise that leads to nothing productive.

What you consider meaningful fortunately isn’t what decides what is meaningful for all others, even for other working physicists. You know, it isn’t choosing to be mechanistic that's objectionable, it is condescending, sometimes-sneering attitudes, especially by those who don’t know much about philosophy (by the way, if you think philosophy played no role in developing physics, or science anyway, then you really do need to study the history of empirical thought).

At this site, I’ve taken quite a few shots from physicalist types, and I’ve given my share too. It seems an uneasy alliance. I remember when I was in the military, a black friend took me to a basketball game with him where several of his buddies were waiting. One of his friends asked him “why did you bring the purple people with you?” I was surprised, not to mention uncomfortable for the rest of the evening. Maybe after days, weeks, months, years of studying physical stuff, philosophical thinkers look like “purple people” to you. But it could be those purple glasses you are wearing too. Can’t we all just get along! (Just kidding, you can hate me if you want. )

 

[quantumdude]

In your last post to me you claim I am wrong a lot but say it is not about being right or wrong so which is it ? Just because you don't understand something doesn't make it wrong.

I understand what you've been saying just fine. I don't say that your methods are wrong because I don't understand them, I say they are wrong because I do understand them.

The two main things I have said are "wrong" are:

1. Your idea that the burden of proof is on the questioner and not the claimant.
2. Your idea that you can tell that something is worthless without having studied it.

I'll get back to these momentarily.

And again, it's not your particular viewpoint on 'karma' that is wrong here. It's your method of argumentation that is deficient.

BTW who said this "if it hasn't been proven false, then it must be true" was it this guy
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html

That is not what falsification theory says. It doesn't say that a theory is held to be true until it is proven false, it says that a theory is not considered scientific unless it can be proven false.

It's not meant to demarcate the line between true and false, it's meant to demarcate the line between physics and metaphysics.

You haven't shot down anything except the standards you attempt to uphold not being applied fairly. Look at the original thread that started this discourse and tell me where in lies the substantiated evidence from others you claim to need. All I see is personal opinion even many of your posts lack evidence for your claims.

You just don't get it.

OK, let's revisit the two things I said you were doing that are wrong.

The first one is the fallacy of argument from ignorance to shift the burden of proof to the questioner. The formal reasoning behind it is "If proposition P has never been proven false, then proposition P is true." The obvious flaw in this is that this schema can be used to "prove" any two propositions "true", even contradictory propositions. Since two contradictory statements cannot both be true, there must be something wrong with the argument schema. Ergo, it is invalid.

The second thing I said was wrong is your attitude that things you have not studied can be validly written off as worthless. The reason being that a meaningful evaluation of a piece of work can only be done from a position of knowledge about that work. Since it is clear that one cannot have knowledge of work that one has not studied, it is also clear that it is not possible to validly render an assessment of a piece of work that one has not studied. And even if one has studied it, it is still expected that the reasoning for the assessment be provided.

Which is better to show an internalised understanding of the subject matter or cut and paste quotes from reputable sources as evidence, to think creatively within the bounds of a subject or regurgitate data made irrelevant by the current state of the world we live in ?

This is an obvious false dichotomy. The justification for a post can come in the form of an argument that you write, or reference to someone else's argument, or data if applicable. Of course, if the particular data is "irrelevant" to the topic at hand then we don't expect you to produce it.

In the case of the "karma" thread, it is important not to use proprietary definitions of "karma". That's why hypnagogue made the request he did.

Where is the logic and reason in instinct and intuition. Is there no room for that in physics or philosophy ?

Instinct and intuition can be good for generating ideas, but they are insufficient for making cases in justification of those ideas. If you make a claim, you have to support it. I really am getting tired of saying that, so I hope you understand and/or accept it this time.

I beg to differ. I say you cannot apply empirical means of support by way of evidence to concepts that lie outside the realm of pure physics ie philosophy/metaphysics.

There are some philosophical claims to which empirical support is appropriate, and there are others to which it is not. In the 'karma' case, Hypnagogue already told you that he doesn't expect empirical evidence.

The "truth" should always be questioned it is generally the truthsayer who refuses to be. If religious pontification is what you think I am doing and I invite questioning then bring it on by any measure. I guarantee it will stimulate discussion and exchange insight far more than reading some obsolete dead guy's rantings or posting links, footnotes and bibliographies to subjective perceptions of reputable sources.

That's what you say here, but that's not the attitude you took on in the 'karma' thread. When Hypnagogue asked you a question, you brashly declared that the onus is on him to prove you wrong, which is clearly nonsense.

Perhaps moderators should qualify their right to pass judgement on philosophical matters by showing evidence of their studies then i might give their opinions some creedence also.

Speaking for myself: I really don't care if you give my opinion any credence, especially after seeing the blatant disregard you have for logic and scholarship. The only thing any member really needs to know about the qualifications of the staff is that we were appointed to these positions by Greg Bernhardt, the owner of this site.

Perhaps Hypnagogue will send you a resume.

In any case prove me wrong

With regards to your method and attitude, I already have proven you wrong. And even if you don't accept that, I have pointed out to you repeatedly that your method and attitude are against Physics Forums guidelines and that we will not tolerate it here.

or let's just agree to disagree and move on. I'll try to change my nature but it's hard to change nature in any form.

We can agree to disagree as long as you comply with the guidelines of this site.

 

[RingoKid]

Please support any claims you have about Karma is supposed to be or do with evidence from a reputable source.

Can you also show me the question Hypno asked me in the karma thread ?

You may have satisfied you own burden of proof as to the "wrongness" of my method but not mine, especially if the point is to inspire intelligent discussion and valuable insight on this site. I'm not wrong just different.

...and yes, perhaps some qualification of moderator status is needed combined with a measure of "do as i do not do as i say" if it is your wish to conform to culturally biased academic standards with regards to substantiating any personal opinions.

I shall endeavour to do the same although in my culture we value instinct intuition and life experience over pieces of paper with lots of big words on them


peace

 

[quantumdude]

Can you also show me the question Hypno asked me in the karma thread ?

The request you quoted was what I was talking about. This thread has gone back and forth so much that I had forgotten he didn't phrase it as a question. But, it was a request nonetheless.

You may have satisfied you own burden of proof as to the "wrongness" of my method but not mine, especially if the point is to inspire intelligent discussion and valuable insight on this site. I'm not wrong just different.

If logic carries no weight with you, then you are quite simply beyond the reach of rational discourse.

...and yes, perhaps some qualification of moderator status is needed

I said it once, and I'll say it again: Greg knows our qualifications, and he's the only one who needs to. But, if you're that interested, you can read my qualifications in my Journal.

combined with a measure of "do as i do not do as i say"

As far as I know, all the Mentors lead by example. You have only to read the posts to see it. Of course, if you dismiss out of hand anything that any Mentor says, then you'll never see that.

if it is your wish to conform to culturally biased academic standards with regards to substantiating any personal opinions.

This line of yours is getting old. There's nothing culturally biased about good reasoning. I challenged you to name for me a single culture that puts out philosophy or science without good reasoning. Rather than do that, you just keep on complaining about this problem, when I suspect the real problem is that you just want your way, and are determined to have it.

I shall endeavour to do the same although in my culture we value instinct intuition and life experience over pieces of paper with lots of big words on them

This is another false dichotomy. No one is asking you to choose between intuition and reason. The fact of the matter is that one is useful for coming up with ideas, and the other is useful for putting them on a sound basis. The first type of thinking is creative thinking. The second is philosophical thinking.

 

[quantumdude]

I'm closing this thread, as I believe the points of view of all parties have been fully disclosed. RingoKid, we aren't going to require you to think a certain way or to hold a certain viewpoint. That's not what we do here. We are going to require you to adhere to the posting guidelines that you agreed to when you signed up for an account here, should you desire to continue posting at Physics Forums.

Thank you for your anticipated cooperation.