In the paradigm cases that have been brought up - radio waves, wind, and germs - there is a clear correlation in theory and observation between cause and effect. — Wayfarer

Cause and effect is itself a theory based on correlation, so I'm not sure what this sentence means.

The cause of the associated phenomena is understood clearly and can be explained directly. — Wayfarer

Really? Can we understand clearly the nature of wave function that ultimately "causes" all the examples you named? Can we directly explain gravity? The clear and direct explanations you posit are based on popular simplifications. In fact, the nature of "normal" matter is hardly less mysterious than that of dark matter.

But the statement that 'some unknown form of matter causes the discrepancy that is observed in the motion of galaxies' clearly is a metaphysical statement, because it posits the existence of some form of matter that can't even be detected by current physics, hence is beyond or above, 'meta', current physics. — Wayfarer

But it isn't unknown. We know a whole lot of it's properties.

‘Abductive reasoning (also called abduction,[1] abductive inference,[1] or retroduction[2]) is a form of logical inference which starts with an observation or set of observations and then seeks to find the simplest and most likely explanation for the observations. This process, unlike deductive reasoning, yields a plausible conclusion but does not positively verify it.’

I believe the germ theory of disease has been verified. You don’t? — Wayfarer

This reads like you're saying that, once a theory arrived at via abductive reasoning is verified, the abduction part it's based on vanishes. That seems nonsensical.

If ‘dark matter’ is real, it means that either our notion of what constitutes ‘matter’ is radically insufficient’, or alternatively, that our understanding of current physics is. How is this *not* a metaphysical issue? — Wayfarer

Both of these options seem evidently within physics. There's nothing "meta" about them.

All working physicists informally appeal to "directness" whenever they make an inference, even though Physics possess no theory of directness. For otherwise a physicist could not claim to learn anything from an experiment, nor for that matter could he find the sentences of physics intelligible. — sime

How does any of this follow?

It looks like the trial against Stone is rigged. The jury foreman is an anti-Trump democratic candidate and Russia truther. — NOS4A2

This just in: Jury members not allowed to have opinions or political leanings. US justice system collapses. "All trials ever have been rigged", says official.

I don't know a lot of physics, I studied it formally up to high school level, and I've read quite a few books on physics, but that was never stated as part of physics. It might have been stated because of 'philosophical reflections on the nature of physics' but it's not something taught in physics per se. — Wayfarer

Obviously anything referencing the terms "direct" or "indirect observation" is philosophy and not physics. My point is that your distinction between direct and indirect has no basis in physics as we currently understand it.

Direct observation = observing directly. — Wayfarer

is this supposed to be a joke?

Observing that movement of masses of air causes trees to bend, that germs cause disease, that radio waves can be detected with the appropriate instruments. Abductive inference = reasoning from effect to cause i.e. 'because this happened, then the cause must be X'. But in this case, 'X' stands for something that not only hasn't been observed, but may possibly never be observable in principle. — Wayfarer

How is "germs cause disease" not an abductive inference? You even reference instruments. "The instrument beeps, therefore it has detected a radiowave" is very clearly reasoning from effect to cause.

You're confusing two kinds of explanation here. Of course one can question the nature of observation itself - that is the task of philosophical analysis. — Wayfarer

No. If I were questioning the nature of observation itself, I'd be asking whether and how what's in your mind is actually related to anything outside of it.

What I am saying is that, according to physics, everything we observe is indirect, an effect. If I "look" at a rock, all I am perceiving is the effect that photons reflected from the rock have on my retina, nerves and brain. How is that a "direct" observation of the rock?

But when it comes to dark matter, it's proposing a natural explanation which consists of some kind of 'matter' the likes of which is completely unknown, to explain observational anomalies in cosmology. — Wayfarer

That sentence doesn't make any sense to me. What does "the kind of which is completely unknown" mean? You could say the same of "normal matter" or "antimatter".

The key point, and where you entered the argument, is that nothing corresponding to dark matter has been directly observed, despite large and elaborate experimental apparatus having been set up for that purpose. — Wayfarer

What do you mean by "corresponding to"? Why would something have to correspond to something else?

We might agree or disagree on what it means, but the absence of direct observation is not a matter of opinion. — Wayfarer

It's even less than an opinion if you can't explain what "direct observation" even is.

What the hell are "direkt observations" anyways? It's not like the photons hitting your retina are a cat, a rock etc. Neither are the vibrations carried to your eardrums a guitar.

Dark matter is used to explain why the motion of galaxies varies from what is predicted. But it's possible there's something wrong with the prediction — Wayfarer

It's possible there's something wrong with any prediction. It's possible cats are entirely an illusion. The only difference is the likelihood of it being the case.

I wasn't aware that it had been criticised a lot. I'm aware of one or two points of dispute, but I always thought it was quite well regarded. Who are the main critics you're thinking of? — Isaac

I don't have anyone in particular in mind, but when I last considered buying the book, I found a lot of references to negative reviews by peers.

Jared Diamond "Guns, Germs and Steel", I think pretty much answers your question. It's well referenced and there's lots of research avenues to go off if you disagree with his conclusions. — Isaac

Though it has also been criticized a lot. It's conclusion are very controversial.

Science doesn’t know what ‘dark energy’ (or dark matter) are, so how can they say they’re physical, when they’re not even described by current physics? — Wayfarer

I think this is a misunderstanding. Current physics do describe "dark matter" and "dark energy". These names describe physical phenomena that have been observed. The name implies that these phenomena are different from other phenomena in that they interact only in very specific ways, not that they're outside of physics.

The entire infinite space with infinite matter, the whole system is a closed system. — god must be atheist

Well we don't really know that, do we? It seems logical on its face, but we can only establish the laws of physics for the observable universe. In a way the observable universe is just a visualisation of the laws of physics. Beyond the observable, all bets are off.

Why do civilizations stagnate? — Jacob-B

Well, why do they evolve? One might argue that stagnation is the natural state, and evolution the unusual circumstance that requires explanation. In truth, both are always relative, there is never absolute stagnation.

Technologically, China was ahead of Europe until the 16th century and in some ways was well-positioned to forge ahead. Yet id did not happen. The ever warring and fragmented countries of Europe stole the march and the unified mighty Han empire. What was the reason for such historical evolution? Has it to do with inward-looking nature Confucian world outlook? — Jacob-B

There are probably lots of reasons. From large cultural and political reasons down to the personalities of single individuals. China was home to the first modern state, but the rule of law was weak compared to (Western) Europe, and there was no social force comparable to the independent Catholic Church.

For instance, why were there a Chinese Marco Polo Chinese travellers to Europe before the time that the Europeans pushed open the gates of China? And why didn't the Chinese embark on exploration similar to that of the European navigators? — Jacob-B

It seems to me that the European explorers were the Anomaly, rather than the other way round. It may have come down to simple things, like shipbuilding technology.

And the most intriguing question: Had European imperialism not impacted on China would China had progressed technologically in the same way as Europe did? The same question could be asked about say the Aztecs or Incas. Would they ever progress beyond the level they were when ‘discovered’ by the European power? — Jacob-B

Probably. But the process may have looked quite different.

No because that suggests that Trump wasn't voted into office. — Hanover

How does it suggest that? There are principles apart from "you have to be elected" that have come to define representative democracies after WW2.

Sure. I am aware of those kinds of compasses. But what's special about the Trump presidency is not just the policies. Those had already been republican policies, if at the fringes.

I'd argue on the other hand that if the Democrats wish to win, they need to move back to the center, instead of continuing to drift left because that shift is reactionary to Trump and not the result of a sudden desire by middle America to emulate European liberalism. — Hanover

Honestly, who knows where the center is anymore in US politics? Trump and with him most of the republican party went to somewhere completely outside the pre-Trump political spectrum. It's a shift to the right on many policy issues, but it's not just that.

Does it even make sense to talk of this as a right/left issue? Isn't it more a question of Trumpism vs. representative Democracy?

This is it? This is the level of debate? — Brett

This isn't a debate. It's an attempt to get a handle on Nosferatu's propaganda.

The apparent divide between "ends" and "means" is a false one. One can wish for a certain end without considering the means. However, once one makes a decision to act, the ends are always already connected to the means. So in terms of practical decisions, ends and means are always one package, to be evaluated as a whole.

You can look at a specific course of action and ask whether or not your chosen means to arrive at your desired end is moral. You cannot evaluate either ends or means separately or establish a general principle that "the ends justify the means"..

If Kant views ethics as a logical problem,
and if machines are made to solve logical problems,
then should machines be able to solve ethical problems as logical problems? — logos

Well the first question is, does Kant view ethics as a "logical problem"?

The Goal is to write a book using these available Actions: write based off true life, write based off Lord Of The Rings, or write based off Nordic folklore. Using the categorical_imperative function, what would the return be on each action and why? — logos

I am not seeing anything about maxims here. The categorical imperative is not a tool to judge single actions, but to judge maxims.

By the way, the notion that non-theist is the same as "atheist" is so self-serving and gratuitous to the atheistic perspective...I cringe at having to dispute it. I am, most assuredly, a non-theist. BUT I AM NOT AN ATHEIST. — Frank Apisa

What's the important difference?

Positioning on the question is broad...running from "There is a God" to "There are no gods." There are nuances and subtleties that come into play. — Frank Apisa

"Atheist" and "theist" are categories. That they gloss over subtleties is kinda the point. Saying someone falls into a category is not the same as saying their position is the same as everyone else's.

But why would you ignore all the ready-made fusion reactors that are already around, their output for the most part wasted?

Even if you have other ways to generate energy, the fundamental calculation remains the same, unless we bring in completely new physics. You want to collect as much matter and useable energy as possible before it disappears over your light horizon.

Perhaps there'd be some civilisations that don't care. But then there'd also be some that would.

Yeah, ETIs probably went "dark and silent" many many millennia ago just like Earth is due to transitioning from broadcast radio to fiber optic transmission barely a century after Bell, Edison & Marconi. (Assuming they started with EM broadcasting and then improved their IT like we are doing now.)

Anyway, I address this very point in my wall-of-text post #(V) copy & pasted below. — 180 Proof

Unless the laws of physics are fundamentally different from what our research so far suggests, the available useable energy in the universe is finite, and every star that isn't fully enclosed by structures or otherwise exploited is a waste of that resource. And that would be visible, even to us.

The problem with these arguments is that presume a "good" to begin with. — IvoryBlackBishop

The problem of evil has to be seen in the context of Christian theology. It doesn't apply to gods in general.

. ONLY atheists seem to think that there is no room for the distance between opinions on "There is a God" to "There are no gods." — Frank Apisa

Granted, I am an atheist. But if we consider possible states of reality, it seems to me there are only ever two options. X is the case, or X isn't the case. I can say "I don't know", but that's a statement about myself, not about X.

It is perhaps important to note that while we commonly admit to not knowing this or that, we don't usually describe ourselves as agnostic. We just admit that whatever position we hold is not based on a lot of information.

Your classification is confusing. Besides, I'm not interested because you include beliefs. Beliefs are subjective. I'm interested in propositions. What do you call a person who neither claims nor denies that God exists? I don't see it on your list. But it's a very relevant concept since it was coined by Th. Huxley.

My classification is simpler:
They claim that God exists = theists
Non-theists:
Deny that God exists =atheists
Neither deny nor affirm= agnostics — David Mo

Is "neither denying nor affirming" a proposition? It seems to me that it "proposes" nothing at all.

God, you’re so predictable, every one of you. — Brett

So are you. Never a single answer.

I can’t remember when my doubts began or what started them. I do remember beginning to see a lot of reports appearing with very loose language, claims that began with words like “Its possible”, or figures “suggest”. — Brett

If the language was more precise, you'd now be complaining that forecasts did not come true. Something you are, in fact, already doing.

I also began reading about scientists who were excommunicated because they disputed uncertainties surrounding climate sensitivity to increased greenhouse gas concentrations, or had accused the IPCC process of gross politicization and scientists of succumbing to “group-think” and “herd instinct”, or who claimed that climate models and popular surface temperature data sets overstated the changes in the real atmosphere and that actual changes were not alarming. — Brett

And have you looked up the actual cases, looked at the professional records of those scientists? Everyone who claimed to have been "excommunicated" I ever looked up was either not actually a climate scientist or an obvious hack.

Then I saw large amounts of money entering the picture, generalisations made about percentages, averages, of heating over long periods and historical figures on temperatures being altered. So many of the predictions made never happened and the horror stories that began to appear became standard forecasts, even though they were based on a worst-case scenario and unlikely to happen. — Brett

Large amounts of money? Compared to the money the oil lobby spend? I doubt it. What did you "see" exactly? Bank records?

Is he the sucker? Or are we, for giving him a stage and willing actors? Who do you think stands to gain from keeping up the appearance of a debate?

No, my only point was the Dems were waffling, more concerned with messaging and optics than justice. The fact they use focus groups to see which worked better is evidence of this. In other words, the accused Trump of crimes and then changed their minds upon realizing it wouldn’t work. It’s all a show; it’s all Democrat dinner-theater. — NOS4A2

Just going to point out that, over here in the real world, it's perfectly normal for charges to be downgraded during the course of an investigation. So is selecting the most promising charges to proceed.

But obviously impeachment proceedings are highly political. They're not, or only in a small part, about justice.

If I wanted to steal a bunch of items but didn't would you try to convict me for theft? — NOS4A2

If you tried to actually do it, but failed, I'd try to get you convicted for attempted theft.

That would be assuming corrupt intent without evidence. That's a dangerous and unjust game to play, especially when there is no such announcement nor any investigation. — NOS4A2

Wanting a public aannouncement is the evidence. If you don't believe me, I encourage you to walk into a shop, take a bunch of items and leave without paying. You can then experience first hand how well the defense of "no evidence for criminal intent" will go.

I was defending Trump’s efforts to get Mexico to pay for it. — NOS4A2

To pay for what? Your sentence is missing an object.

I’m just saying that Mexico is paying for American border security. You can thank Trump for that. — NOS4A2

But you were attempting to defend Trumps promise of building a wall. So what does any of this have to do with the wall idea?

To you “people” means all Trump’s opponents. Play that game all you want. — NOS4A2

So who did you mean?

Mexico is paying for it. — NOS4A2

What is this nonsense? Anything the Mexicans are paying for is now related to Trump's promise of building a wall?

How would anything that Mexico does now be different if Trump never promised a wall?

I said “people who would rather not think about politics”. You said “all Trump supporters”. Not even close. — NOS4A2

Ok, let's play that game: who are the people who would rather not think about politics? What's their stance toward Trump?

Sure it does. The actions by the Mexican governments are directly contributing to lower illegal immigration over the border, saving American’s money at great expense to the Mexican government. — NOS4A2

And all achieved without a wall, or anything related to funding a wall. So where is the connection, exactly?

Hopefully you do too. Arguing that building a wall doesn’t work because there are a lot of illegals overstaying visas is absurd because a wall is not intended to stop or hinder the flow of illegals overstaying visas. — NOS4A2

No-one is arguing that "building a wall doesn't work" in the sense that you literally end up with nothing. That's just a straw man. The argument is whether building a wall is an effective policy regarding illegal immigration as a whole.

Those two arguments are not even analogous. — NOS4A2

The analogous part is painting your political opposition with a single broad, condescending brush.

Mexico is doing quite a bit along the border. They recently sent 15,000 troops there to slow northern migration at great expense. Sure they aren’t handing over cash for a wall, but they are now doing their part where they weren’t before. It’s working. So it turns out to be a great policy. — NOS4A2

That has nothing to do with the wall, as you well know.

The wall is to hinder the ones who hop the border, not the ones who overstay their visas. — NOS4A2

Says who? You?

That’s the problem, I think, is Trump’s expressions strikes fear into people who would rather not think about politics, but would much rather be lulled by glittering generalities and euphemism. People are thinking about politics now, some for the first time in their lives. — NOS4A2

That's as patently absurd as claiming all Trump supporters are idiots who only vote for Trump because they know him from TV.

Not just the Nordic welfare system, but welfare states in general. I’m thinking also Canada, Japan, Australia, the UK. — NOS4A2

Well, there's Germany, France and Italy, as well. Interestingly enough, this made me realize that republics don't actually make up the vast majority of industrial countries.

hat would then entail that some kind of socialism should dominate in an open democracy, whether under that name or not, since the thing that most people want is the easement of their material suffering, — Pfhorrest

That seems a bit constructed to me. There is a bunch of emotional needs that people also want fulfilled. People will also not necessarily be aware of what exactly these needs are and how to fulfill them. People also carry a lot of stone-age politics around with them.

Is there any correlation between welfare states and monarchies? The universal support for such policies could be explained by a sense of unity brought about by monarchies. — NOS4A2

But that wouldn't explain the geographic clustering, would it? There are other correlations concerning the nordic european countries: Protestantism. An early start on high literacy rates. Participation in government starting from the ground up.

I love how only my statements receive your criticism while everyone else's are pushed aside and covered for. — NOS4A2

Am I not allowed to pick and choose what I find interesting? Who am I "covering for" by asking you a question? Why are you so afraid of questions, anyways?

You waste your great writing in the service of tyranny and injustice — NOS4A2

One might accuse you of much the same, given your unwavering loyalty to your chosen cause. So are these more than words, "empty and without value"? Can you explain what makes the Tyranny?

Why? P, P -> Q | Q is just right because it follow from some rules. But these rules can change overnight, can they? — Pippen

It doesn't follow from a rule in the sense of a social construct. Something that people decided to do. It follows from the way human minds work. It's possible human minds change overnight, but we, being human minds, wouldn't notice.

So MP could be true today but false tomorrow. Imagine - overnight - our world becomes weird in the way that it becomes impossible to construct any implication P -> Q (~P v Q). I know it's hard to imagine, but I can just write it down and say: so be it from henceforward. — Pippen

The world cannot change logic, other than changing human minds. You can write it down, but can you actually believe it?

I'm wondering then, if other sentient species experience similar emotions and have the capacity to empathise, show compassion, possess theory of mind etc... why do so many people place our species on a pedestal? — Bella Lack

Do you want a descriptive answer or a philosophical argument? From the perspective of moral philosophy, I think the ability to engage in a form of "social contact" is relevant. We can signal our mutual respect as equals to other humans, something we cannot do with other animals.

And if you don't like that neither then tell me, is consciousness a type of feeling at all, and if not, then what in the world is it? — Zelebg

There is a base assumption at play here: that consciousness can be categorised, using language, under a more general term. But is this necessarily the case? Perhaps some basic concepts, like consciousness, defy further categorisation?