12:00-12:25
After a brief discussion about inviting other people to the discussion, we did some trouble shooting for folks trying to access the system.
Gallery 1044, 1044 Larkin Opening Saturday at 7:00pm.
12:40
Seanchan will sort out the forum by Friday so that we have the weekend to get what we need together for next meeting.
12:45
A question was posed what philosophy you needed in the face of hopelessness.
We investigated the nature of hope, it's positive effects on us, and whether we can live without it.
1:05 - Adjourned
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Monday, March 28, 2011
Our First Week Blogging - Stats
I thought you might find it interesting to see our traffic for the first week of blogging.
I hope that this increases, and I hope to see more contributors. I have a few pieces in draft form that I plan to post next week, so keep checking back.
I have found this really rewarding (even if I have mostly been commenting on Seanchan's wacky ideas)!
I hope that this increases, and I hope to see more contributors. I have a few pieces in draft form that I plan to post next week, so keep checking back.
I have found this really rewarding (even if I have mostly been commenting on Seanchan's wacky ideas)!
How does one protect themselves from slipping from developing a theory into reinforcing a belief.
Since we have agreement on the definition of ‘belief’ and ‘theory,’ let us start a new related subject. How does one protect themselfs from slipping from developing a theory into reinforcing a belief.
Now that we know that when someone says that they ‘believe’ that X is ‘true,’ that there is no reason to use the empirical method in discussing their ‘believes.’ It would be unfair to both parties. By saying that one ‘believe’ that X is true, one is saying that they have no empirical data which can be evaluated for X. They do have feelings about X or they accept X or have faith in X or the hold the opinion that X is ‘true,’ but they have no data that can be compared with the other person. All opposing ‘beliefs’ have an equal probability of being ‘true’ or ‘false’ because they have nothing to compare between the beliefs. Believing something does not make it ‘true’ or ‘false,’ but it does mean that there is no belief has any more probability than any other belief.
If someone says that they ‘theorize’ that something is true, it opens up the possibility of mutual exploration into the idea with the use of the empirical/scientific method. By saying that they have a ‘theory’ they imply that they have premises and/or a framework which can be explored using empirical tools. Opposing ‘theories’ will have different levels of probability based on the empirical/scientific method. Theorizing something does not make it ‘true’ or ‘false,’ but it does mean that the data can show that one theory can be more probable then any other theories.
So, the question of this post is, how does one protect them selfs from slipping from developing a theory to merely reinforcing a belief when one uses the empirical/scientific method.
Let me again use the built in macintosh dictionary:
-------------------
Empirical method
Empirical method is generally taken to mean the collection of data on which to base a theory or derive a conclusion in science. It is part of the scientific method, but is often mistakenly assumed to be synonymous with the experimental method.
-------------------------
empirical
based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.
-----------------------------
scientific method
a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
------------------------------
One way one can protect them selfs from slipping from developing a theory to reinforcing a belief is to have empirical/scientific discussions where one explore the probability of empirical/scientific data and to continually get more data.
If one uses the empirical data that one has acquired up to the time of evaluation, one can propose that X is more probable then Y.
But now, let us talk about the gorila that is in the room. ‘Certainty.’
---------------------------
certainty
firm conviction that something is the case
---------------------------
the quest for certainty leads one to the “logical problems with induction” presented by David Hume, Karl Popper and others. Hume wrote: “No amount of observations of white swans can allow the inference that all swans are white, but the observation of a single black swan is sufficient to refute that conclusion.”
In an infinit univers there is an infinit amount of data and the very last bit of data at the very end of infinity might be a ‘black swan’ which could disprove all previous observations. With this in mind, one must admit that there will be no certainty until all the data in the univers has been acquired.
But is knowledge an “on” or “off’ switch? Is empirical/scientific theory/knowledge an all or nothing deal? When they discovered that there were black swans it disproved the statement that ”all swans are white,” but it didn’t disprove that there are white swans. And even though humanity may find data that there are no “white swans,” the probability is very small.
A posible illustration of the rheostat of understanding could be ignorance, belief, hypothesis, theory, certainty and I would put forward that the farther one moves along this line of understanding, the more functionally one can interact with the world. (This maybe the start of another post.)
And so, in conclusion, I would like to say that even though empirical/scientific knowledge is not a certainty it is more functional then any method that we know of at this time and by continually reexamining our data we can keep ourselves from slipping from developing a theory into reinforcing a belief.
Now that we know that when someone says that they ‘believe’ that X is ‘true,’ that there is no reason to use the empirical method in discussing their ‘believes.’ It would be unfair to both parties. By saying that one ‘believe’ that X is true, one is saying that they have no empirical data which can be evaluated for X. They do have feelings about X or they accept X or have faith in X or the hold the opinion that X is ‘true,’ but they have no data that can be compared with the other person. All opposing ‘beliefs’ have an equal probability of being ‘true’ or ‘false’ because they have nothing to compare between the beliefs. Believing something does not make it ‘true’ or ‘false,’ but it does mean that there is no belief has any more probability than any other belief.
If someone says that they ‘theorize’ that something is true, it opens up the possibility of mutual exploration into the idea with the use of the empirical/scientific method. By saying that they have a ‘theory’ they imply that they have premises and/or a framework which can be explored using empirical tools. Opposing ‘theories’ will have different levels of probability based on the empirical/scientific method. Theorizing something does not make it ‘true’ or ‘false,’ but it does mean that the data can show that one theory can be more probable then any other theories.
So, the question of this post is, how does one protect them selfs from slipping from developing a theory to merely reinforcing a belief when one uses the empirical/scientific method.
Let me again use the built in macintosh dictionary:
-------------------
Empirical method
Empirical method is generally taken to mean the collection of data on which to base a theory or derive a conclusion in science. It is part of the scientific method, but is often mistakenly assumed to be synonymous with the experimental method.
-------------------------
empirical
based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.
-----------------------------
scientific method
a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
------------------------------
One way one can protect them selfs from slipping from developing a theory to reinforcing a belief is to have empirical/scientific discussions where one explore the probability of empirical/scientific data and to continually get more data.
If one uses the empirical data that one has acquired up to the time of evaluation, one can propose that X is more probable then Y.
But now, let us talk about the gorila that is in the room. ‘Certainty.’
---------------------------
certainty
firm conviction that something is the case
---------------------------
the quest for certainty leads one to the “logical problems with induction” presented by David Hume, Karl Popper and others. Hume wrote: “No amount of observations of white swans can allow the inference that all swans are white, but the observation of a single black swan is sufficient to refute that conclusion.”
In an infinit univers there is an infinit amount of data and the very last bit of data at the very end of infinity might be a ‘black swan’ which could disprove all previous observations. With this in mind, one must admit that there will be no certainty until all the data in the univers has been acquired.
But is knowledge an “on” or “off’ switch? Is empirical/scientific theory/knowledge an all or nothing deal? When they discovered that there were black swans it disproved the statement that ”all swans are white,” but it didn’t disprove that there are white swans. And even though humanity may find data that there are no “white swans,” the probability is very small.
A posible illustration of the rheostat of understanding could be ignorance, belief, hypothesis, theory, certainty and I would put forward that the farther one moves along this line of understanding, the more functionally one can interact with the world. (This maybe the start of another post.)
And so, in conclusion, I would like to say that even though empirical/scientific knowledge is not a certainty it is more functional then any method that we know of at this time and by continually reexamining our data we can keep ourselves from slipping from developing a theory into reinforcing a belief.
Saturday, March 26, 2011
Proposed Agenda for March 29
I thought it might be a good idea to plan out a bit of the agenda, post feedback in the comments!:
12-12:15 - Getting People Connected
12-12:15 - Getting People Connected
- help folks get online
- a little pre-meeting social chatting
12:15-12:25 - The Blog
- Make sure everyone can log in, knows how to access the blog.
12:25-1:00 - The Regularly Scheduled Program
Thursday, March 24, 2011
The need of saying, "I theorize" instead of "I believe."
I, Seanchan Owen, put forward that an idea which has premises or a framework is a theory and it is different then a belief.
Let us take the example of 'Santa Claus.’ If one has the premises that the time it would take to get into all the house in the world in one night would be impossible, the aerodynamic and power of reindeers makes them unable to fly, and the amount of presents that would be need for all the children in the world would not fitted into Santa’s sled, and the definition of Santa Clause is someone who can get these things to happen, then one can theorizes that there is no one who can do these tasks and there fore there is no Santa Clause. It would be correct to say, “I theorize that there is no Santa Claus,” and incorrect to say, “I believe that there is no Santa Claus.”
Let’s us take a quick look at the dictionary that is built into this macintosh and see what it puts forward as the meaning of these two words. (we can look at other dictionaries as the post continues, if you wish, but I put forward that this could be looked at as general usage.)
----------------------
theorize |ˈθēəˌrīz; ˈθi(ə)rˌīz|
verb [ intrans. ]
form a theory or set of theories about something : [as n. ] ( theorizing) they are more interested in obtaining results than in political theorizing.
• [ trans. ] create a theoretical premise or framework for (something) : women should be doing feminism rather than theorizing it.
-----------------------
and
-----------------------
believe |biˈlēv|
verb [ trans. ]
1 accept (something) as true; feel sure of the truth of : the superintendent believed Lancaster's story | [with clause ] Christians believe that Jesus rose from the dead.
• accept the statement of (someone) as true : he didn't believe her or didn't want to know.
• [ intrans. ] have faith, esp. religious faith : there are those on the fringes of the Church who do not really believe.
• ( believe something of someone) feel sure that (someone) is capable of a particular action : I wouldn't have believed it of Lois—what an extraordinary woman!
2 [with clause ] hold (something) as an opinion; think or suppose : I believe we've already met | things were not as bad as the experts believed | humu-humu are, I believe, shrimp fritters | ( believe someone/something to be) four men were believed to be trapped.
--------------------
We see here that ‘theorize’ has premises or frameworks and ‘believe’ is structured on feelings or acceptance or faith or the holding of an opinion.
There is no way to calculate which belief has a higher probability of being correct if there is nothing to compare but the 'belief' of the participants. Two people, each with a different belief system, will not be able to prove that the other is incorrect in their bilief by using bilief alown. There is no way to compare a belief with a theory to see which has a higher probability because there is no way to compare something which is structured on feelings or acceptance or faith or what opinion one holds with perceivable premises which are testable. One can only reach an understanding by comparing theories as to which has a higher probability of being correct by comparing the premises or the framework of the two theories.
It is posible to philosophically discuss God if all parties have theories with premises or frameworks in relation to what they are discussing.
And so I put forward that “the best philosophers” need to use the words ‘theory’ and ‘belief’ correctly. It will be hard to change our habit, but if we don’t do it, who will?
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Notes From March 22, 2011 Meeting
12:19 - Meeting Called to Order
We briefly discussed the need for civic engagement in a modern context.
We briefly discussed the need for civic engagement in a modern context.
- Immediacy
- WikiLeaks
Democratization of the Internet
We decided to create this blog. Hello, world!
12:52 - Meeting Adjourned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)