Now, prediction itself is what brings in the money, so no one really cares about the description (hypothesis). And, the mathematics of probability is what enables prediction, so that's where the focus is. — Metaphysician Undercover

Ah, 'makes sense.

The invasion of probability is due to the reliance on mathematics rather than description. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes. I haven't even thought that finally someone could say this. To some description alone is inaccurate.

Seems relevant. — TheMadFool

It's an apt metaphor.

You may not have noticed that Merkwurdichliebe just above dismisses 700,000+ US Covid deaths - and presumably 4.5 million worldwide - as any sort of evidence in favor of any limitation on his personal "rights." His a deep dishonesty or craziness or both. Ordinary civility with such a person, imo, a fundamental error. — tim wood

Enough said.

Yet here we are, on an Internet philosophy website, where you would expect to attract people with a modicum of education and thoughtfulness, debating six or seven (essentially) anti-vaxxers.

It's pretty sad, and scary for the future. They of course cannot see this, and never will, but they're in the same boat as these other people. Why? — Xtrix

:up:

I have seen criticism of QM mainly and relativity perhaps a bit and then that physics is reductionistic (though the reductionism charge I have tended to see aimed more at the biological sciences). — Bylaw

It's cause the reductionist charge is yet another issue addressed by the critics. It goes like this, in three separate issues:

1.science has now been invaded by probability because it strayed away from causality. The probability coming from QM and relativity. For example, it is now fashionable to have a theory of duality -- wave/particle quantum entities. Is it a wave or is it concrete particles? Causality gives science not only predictability, but also precision. That's the power of causation.

2. science has been used in all aspects of humanity -- whether it can actually explain fully the human psychology or behavior is not a problem. In the name of science, everything could be quantified and measured. (this is a separate issue from one). Notice that in #1, if we accept QM, we're okay to not have exact measurements. But here issue #2, according to critics, science would like to have a precise formula for understanding human behavior.

3. reductionism in terms of mechanistic interpretation of every thing, the world. Such as, one equation for everything. Again, go back to #2 -- there are humans and animals (whose intelligence are undeniable) in the world. Critics argue that the mechanistic view of the world would like to rid of the organic and metaphysical quality of the inhabitant of the Earth.

But I am not sure how that relates to empirical critiques. Relativity has had many types of empirical confirmation, as has QM. In general. Specific interpretations of qm phenomena are seen as unjustified, but the data does not support seeing particles as tiny balls. — Bylaw

This is criticism number 4. If we go with the empiricists, on the other hand, the empiricists would like to rid of realism in scientific terms. Do you agree? There are things in the world that exists with or without us. Now the empiricists would then say, then who's doing the science, but humans themselves. So ultimately, realism is defective. See the point?

People understand different things when they talk about science. — Nickolasgaspar

I concur.

Since science is not a single"method" we need to find out what really is.
Science is a Philosophical Category (Natural Philosophy) with a set of empirical methodologies that is mainly interested in the evaluation of our knowledge claims.
What people do with those knowledge claims is a separate issue.(politics, economics etc). — Nickolasgaspar

Again, I agree.

In my opinion the only decay related to science is the public understanding of what science is, their inability to distinguish technology from science and what elements make scientific knowledge so important and credible.
This decay is mainly product of the global system of education set to serve other priorities and the idea that knowledge is just an opinion. — Nickolasgaspar

Yes, I have now accepted that we should change our focus to the understanding of what science is about. Start with education.

But the strongest critics of science are those that are against QM and relativity because QM is the gateway to all kinds of "speculative science", if you will. (See my response to Bylaw above). So, what better way to stop the bleeding than to get straight to the source -- which is the QM (and I'm not even knowledgeable of the enormity of the power of QMists to even change the foundation of science).
Heck, I don't understand, period.

What about the constitutionally established process of lawmaking that protects the individual from possible forms of state tyranny. — Merkwurdichliebe

What if I reject the narrative of law making process the same way you reject the scientific narrative?

I resigned the game! :grin: — TheMadFool

Were you forced to resign? I think it's implicit, no?

Are you aware of the "scientific method"? It does not dictate how individuals "should" behave. Narrative is entirely interpretive. — Merkwurdichliebe

Okay, fair enough. No one can force you to accept facts or reality. But then, there's also the law, which could make a convincing narrative that you should be put in jail (as an example) for being a menace to society and ignoring facts.

Now that I think about it, some facts should be a law automatically. Actually there are things that are both facts and laws at the same time. Jumping off a bridge above the freeway is both a fact of death and a prohibition at once.

The data must convince me. If it does not, it needs to do a better job of creating a believable narrative. If you are so gullible as to be easily convinced by a soft and rehashed narrative, so be it. — Merkwurdichliebe

Once in a while I peak in here to see what's been happening.

Scientific data just flows logically -- that's the believable narrative. You're not supposed to force yourself to accept it. You're supposed to understand it, because with understanding comes acceptance,naturally. If you're not convinced of scientific data, then something else is happening here. You know the saying, have faith in science. By faith, we don't mean blindly. We mean there's a society we live in that ensures that science is behaving like science.

I've previously characterised my own view as realist. I've argued against typical examples of anti-realism such as pragmatic theory, logical positivism, transcendental idealism and Berkeley's form of idealism. I have however also defended a constructivist view of mathematics, an anti-realist position; and off-handedly rejected realism in ethics and aesthetics. — Banno

This is an interesting take and well deserving of a mention.

I noticed that those you rejected, as a realist, are either abstract (mathematical stuff), or highly intangible (values and morality). And the one you embrace, as a realist, is reality itself -- which to me is a concrete stuff. Were in it.. We can't separate our selves or musings from reality. But somehow, morality and mathematics can be talked about as if they have a separate, permanent space somewhere that can be called into action at a moment's notice.

Many economic theories are based on the assumption that businesses exist to maximize profits. Neoclassical economists (mainstream) use the profit motive as an axiom to build economic models. Making money is seen as the single purpose for all business. — Wheatley

Many economic models are also just that, model -- not as easy to put to work in reality. And yes, while profit is the goal of doing business -- you don't spend money and workforce just to have losses -- this has been simplified too much. Rational economic principles include ethical business practices. But just because there exist rational economic principles, it doesn't mean we are not going to have the problem of bad business owners.

Anyway, maximizing profit must take into account the working condition of the workers/employees since labor is one of the most costly expenditures of a business. It's like pulling a rope -- you pull too much on one end and it stresses the other end. You can't cut corners without consequences, and you ask yourself, are these consequences something I could live with or is it going to drive the business to the ground?

I'm venting due to experiences discussing things on this forum. If I try to present an unbiased view, I'm in everyone's shit list. — frank

:) welcome to the club.

Accept defeat = Resign — TheMadFool

In a manner of speaking.

Your turn.

So, the decay in science is coming from people who believe science is slighting (the existence of) things outside our perception? Can you give me a recent example of this? (and I am not saying this is not a significant phenomenon or that you are incorrect, I just find it hard to know exactly what is meant at this level of abstraction.) — Bylaw

If you notice in your reading that the physicists are mostly the culprit of the traditional science-decline sentiments, though they're not the only target of the critics. Quantum theory, relativity theory, reductionist physics, and oh, alternative knowing. I think the Germans promoted this alternative knowing. Not sure.

On the other side of this "speculative" physics, are the empiricists. Those who want to play it safe and remain down to earth. (not my idea). Perception and observation are the real scientific method according to this thinking.

But our ordinary lives depend on something else. The here and now happenings -- like the science behind the vaccines, or the CDC's understanding of the spread of diseases, and people's conception of freedom and rights relating to the containment of diseases. (If you tested positive for TB, you can't fly, etc. If you do, your record of communicable disease would be all over the media. And to the authorities, that's fair game). Yet squabbles about what's science and what's pseudo science in testing vaccines and efficacy of drugs and pandemic hardly become permanent inhabitants of scholarly books that get attacked by the likes of Hilary Putnam.

It seems to me that prominent philosophers who finally find time to write a criticism against a staunch critic of science always end up reacting against Marxism or socialism -- they use the background of science in order to get to the point of criticizing the marxist or socialist agenda. Not that I have any opposition to it. I don't care. I don't even understand.

But one gets excited over a narrative, only to be slammed with a marxist/socialist horror story. How about let's get to the business of criticizing science or defending it, and not be shuttered by more marxist socialist political tryst. Maybe we should read PW Anderson.

See my reply to 180 Proof. To resign oneself to one's fate is to accept what's happening and what one thinks will happen. — TheMadFool

"Accept" is the word we commonly use. But since we are here in this thread discussing it, you truly don't believe that resigning is accepting, right? You utter the word "accept", but really it's not intellectually coherent without understanding. By understanding we mean, rational and logical. If you can't justify something, you can't accept it. Acceptance is a choice. Resignation is giving up.

What's the difference between acceptance and resignation? — TheMadFool

With understanding comes acceptance. Acceptance can never happen without understanding. Resignation is as what you mused above -- one has no choice or lacks energy to quarrel.

Btw, when we ascribe natural feelings to animals, do not overthink it. Empathy, for example, is not a logically-derived moral feeling. When I say animals have a will to live, I am not exercising my moral sense, only my natural observation and rationality.

↪Caldwell
What is this 'power' and 'corruption' then? Are they the only points to consider here? — I like sushi

Because you're mixing narratives. Power and corruption are both social and political terms. Why mix it with the point you're trying to make in the first place if it isn't what you mean? Don't contrast two ideas within the same context. It doesn't sound right.

...the second part of the question if our moral system likewise ascribes (not equal but rather) sufficient moral value to non-human animals. If not, the third and final part of the question asks us what is it that is true of humans that would have to be true of animals in order for us to ascribe sufficient moral value to condemn killing them for food. — Cartesian trigger-puppets

Alright. Let's get serious then.

First, you assume that implicit in our moral system, that is, if we believe we have a moral system, implicit in this system is condemning killing humans for food. Correct?
Second, if we have a moral system, does it ascribe sufficient moral value to animals?
Third, if we do not extend this moral system to animals, then what is it that we possess that animals don't? (Or the reverse, what is true of us that is also true of animals so that we also condemn killing animals for food).

Let me rephrase: We fucking hate being killed for food. Do you remember the last time you were hunted for food? It was fucking annoying, to say the least! And we hate it because we are moral agents. We have morals. Yet, we fucking love killing animals for food. What is it that separates us from animals so that we're okay eating them, at the same time condemning killing humans for food.

And my answer is this: our moral system does not have a built-in justification for following convention or practice by tradition. Please do not confuse acting with license to do something with being moral. There is a difference. We do not always behave morally. The problem with your OP is that you are already making conclusions before you even perform any examination of the moral system you're talking about. The "consistency" you're requiring is misplaced. What is true of humans that is also true of animals so that we do not kill animals for food? The will to live! Animals want to live. Which means, they recognize fun, entertainment, grief, family, and belonging. They have a sense of sustenance and comfort. I mean, the way humans treat animals -- Good Lord!

Tom, well said. I was going to respond, but yours will suffice.

So, on your view, there should be no morality at all because there was none once upon a time in our evolutionary past? That is what is entailed by that logic. — Cartesian trigger-puppets

How did you come up with this conclusion? Read your question below again, please. Did I say there's no morality? Do not generalize.

“What is true of animals that if true of humans would justify killing them for food?” — Cartesian trigger-puppets

I said none -- because there is nothing that is true of animals that if true of humans would justify killing them for food. So, let me rephrase that. There was no justification given before for eating animals. Humans just did. And there isn't gonna be one now. There is no justification that is sufficient that would allow eating humans for food, and nothing for animals either.

↪Caldwell
Basically, that which you are forced to accept. — Cidat

Nope. And that's the beauty of philosophy. You're not forced to accept anything. You accept it because it logically follows.

In other words, reality just is and no amount of mental manipulation/acrobatics can/will alter/affect it. Reality then is that which you have to accept. — TheMadFool

Yes.

Is it possible to give a rigorous definition of 'reality'? — Cidat

You don't try to define reality. You prove or justify it. That's why philosophy is well equipped when it comes to this topic.

“What is true of animals that if true of humans would justify killing them for food?” — Cartesian trigger-puppets

None. There was no deliberation or rationalization that took place when humans first started eating other animals for food. There was no justification, period. And there isn't' one now.

Start with current top notch datamining capability and computer recognition, lets say every comment here on PF and on other Philosophical discussion site (still, quite finite amount of discussion threads), then add a great English language program, and realistically you could have a program that would fool people most of the time. — ssu

Yeah, my comment was rather charitable regarding the topic here. But, I already made a remark regarding the limitation of that particular test. The test itself is not what we could pass as test of intelligence or consciousness.

But is it inevitable that humans with a complex language would always have constructed such formality? — David S

Yes. It is called the agency. We have the innate agency to form a system that addresses moral concerns. At any given point in time, we have agency. But whether it's undeveloped, underdeveloped, or advanced is a condition brought about by time and civilization.

Why when animals are able to form order and organisation without this does the human stand alone. — David S

Animals have a different system of existence. We shouldn't be comparing human agency with animal existence. That we are able to extend this notion of agency and acknowledge that animals have intelligence, or whatever, is our own issue.

Yes, that is the inevitable conclusion.

This is interesting. I’m not sure either that a human would necessarily be fooled—it seems logically possible for an AI to be indiscernible from a human, but in reality a person could discern the two if they understood the limitations in the AI’s programming and exploited them to discover it. — AJJ

The human examiner could not be fooled. The critics of Turing Test had already addressed its limitation -- the "test" is very limited to the basics to which both the human and computer subjects could say yes or no. So the test itself is not representative of what we, humans, would call adequate measure of human intelligence or consciousness. It is intentionally rigged so that not only the human subject, but also the computer could respond.

You can't tell the difference and, ergo, by the Turing principle, the AI is a conscious (makes it a person) OR, intriguingly, if that's a hard pill to swallow... — TheMadFool

Dude, don't re-interpret the Turing test. Stick to what the Turing test says.

explain — I love Chom-choms

Which one to explain -- the meaning of instinct? Or the reaction of human to rain falling on him?

If a machine can fool a person into believing that it itself is a person, it must be considered as AI. In other words, AI is a person. — TheMadFool

Careful with the syllogism. Not that the computer, if it passes the test, is a person. It is that the computer is intelligent.

AI (and neural nets) is just a showy way of talking about laptops and PCs. — Daemon

Correct.

The way I've heard them being described is like this, if you feel wet drops on your arm intelligence tells you its raining and wisdom tells you to go inside. — HardWorker

Neither. It's instinct.

It seems to me that 'intelligence' is an adaptive error-correcting / problem solving optimizer — 180 Proof

Interesting, Proof. Let's talk about this.

What if someone says, error-correcting is a learning process stage, not intelligence -- at least not yet. Do you think we can make this distinction? I am convinced that we can. I cannot cite an author at the moment, but they are out there.

Look at the animals, for example. Nature has equipped them with intestinal trigger for bad food. They see a plant, they eat it, then start having stomach disturbance, which then causes them to vomit that food they just ingested. Here, it is nature that's responsible. Not their intelligence yet. After many, many generations of error corrections, and many bad foods, they would come to know which ones to avoid. When they no longer have to test the food, when they can immediately know which ones are good, and when they can forget about the strategy they used in the beginning, which was, eat, vomit, move on, then eat, vomit, move on -- Then and only then that intelligence happens.

When a guy tells a woman she's beautiful and she either says that she knows or gives an unmoved expression that indicates that the sentiment isn't worth much is this just straight up hubris? — TiredThinker

Because the guy had chosen the 'wrong' person to give compliments to. He should save it for someone deserving of that compliment. When he tells me I'm beautiful, I could almost cry. That's how strong it is to me. Because I know he's saying much more than the physical thing he's seeing -- he is saying something inside him that's also beautiful. And he's sharing it with me. That's vulnerability I wouldn't trade for the world. (Well, not the world, lol, but you get my point).

Guys, don't waste your time on someone who can't give you the same quality feeling. Look beyond the physical thing. Save your precious compliments for another time, when the right one comes along.

Interestingly, is free will, if present, like the misbehaving toaster, a malfunction i.e. are we breaking the so-called laws of nature? That explains a lot, doesn't it? — TheMadFool

Could be. lol.

So do you call your love malfunctioning toaster sometimes?

Random thoughts. No particular point to it. — TheMadFool

Even funnier -- out-of-the-blue funny.