Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site ISM780B.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!decvax!yale!ISM780B!jim From: jim@ISM780B.UUCP Newsgroups: net.philosophy Subject: Re: ROSEN vs Wishful Thinkers (?) - (Sci Message-ID: <27500129@ISM780B.UUCP> Date: Tue, 24-Sep-85 06:38:00 EDT Article-I.D.: ISM780B.27500129 Posted: Tue Sep 24 06:38:00 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 28-Sep-85 08:41:04 EDT References: <253@yetti.UUCP> Lines: 222 Nf-ID: #R:yetti:-25300:ISM780B:27500129:000:13423 Nf-From: ISM780B!jim Sep 24 06:38:00 1985 >> You use the lewd and lascivious argumentative technique of claiming >> that there are *scientific* *results* that support your arguments. > >Hey, who is making the claim of something completely contrary to scientific >thought and knowledge? Me? Or you? Where does the burden of proof lie? > >> [in smaller print: those who do not agree are *unscientific*! whew!] > >You betchum, red rider. Rich, thanks for giving us once again a brilliant illustration of your power of argument. Many of your demonstrations of the correctness of your positions are about as strong as "you betchum, red rider". I am not saying that your positions are wrong; but I am saying that you refuse to support them scientifically and objectively. Rather, when pressed hard you often resort to insults and declamations. As for "who is making the claim ... completely contrary ...?" I don't think anyone is, except for your claims *about people*, and there the burden of proof is on you. As for the burden of proof for philosophical arguments, it is on everyone who engages in them, even you, *no matter how obvious you think your statements are*; if they are challenged, they are not obvious. If the scientific method is challenged, the burden is on anyone who chooses to defend it. Philosophy of science is really damn tricky business, and dismissing questions about it by calling the questioners names is not *philosophically* defensible. Try explaining just what the scientific method is, when, where and why it applies, why we trust induction given Hume's powerful arguments, how to use Occam's Razor and why. What is proof? What is sufficient evidence? Why do we accept Modus Ponens? How do we deal with someone who rejects it? Why not share your deep thoughts on these subjects? *Philosophize* a bit. >> This *body of knowledge* you are speaking of: Would you give us >> few pointers, so that we can get at it too ?? Just to check whether >> or not it is the same *body of knowledge* that Dennett is running >> circles around. Could you please summarize this stuff ?? >> (I *mean* summarize. pointing at 10,000 articles you have posted >> is not good enough. It would take a year to go through all the >> little tidbits of statements and distill it to something that >> is comprehensible. By your own admission, you type fast, so it >> should not be much of a problem). In other words, put your >> keyboard where your mouth is. (no cheap pun intended) > >In other words, you weren't willing to read what I wrote the first time, so >now I'm obliged to summarize it ALL because you say so! No thank you, my >friend. Ask some specific questions, get some specific answers, but don't >play these broad sweeping games with me. Clearly you were being asked to summarize the body of knowledge you had referred to, *rather than* repeat your own postings, which can hardly be considered a body of knowledge. But since you can't do so, you used a a typically dishonest method of avoidance, redirection, and attack. >> Of course, once you summarize all that, I will tell you >> about how modern physics has done away with classical >> determinism. I could even recommend few more books from >> likes of David Bohm and Max Jammer, for you to dismiss without >> even reading. > >I'll summarize this: it's amazing how you speak of me being wrong for >believing in the work of science, yet it is all right for YOU to claim >"science has shown that classical determinism is dead, which is a point >for me, so I'll believe THAT one". Funny, isn't that a perfect example >of having anthropocentric faith in science which you and others like you >accuse me of: "WE, the great all powerful humans, cannot determine a >determining cause here, thus there MUST be no cause and no determinism!!! >YAY!!!!!" Rich, while some may think you wrong for believing in the work of science, I don't think the person you responded to has indicated that. Rather, it is *your claim* that what you say is based on science, that is questioned. The only thing I have seen you offer is a single quotation from a single dictionary of only one of the contained definitions of free will, coupled with a blatantly obvious (to me) misinterpretation of that definition. One of the basic requirements of the scientific method is that a scientist's work, to be considered valid, must use acceptable methods and be based on accepted and validated logic. Your methods, at least as illustrated in this forum, are not scientific, scientifically presented, or accepted by the community. No scientist can stand alone and say "I used proper methods and logic and therefore what I say must be true even if few agree with me" because this does not allow for the *possibility that that scientist is wrong*. The scientist *may* be correct, but the power of the scientific method lies in *verification*; dropping that requirement leads to a proliferation of Von Danikens and Rich Rosens, all claiming access to a truth that the "authorities" deny. Now I do believe that Rich Rosen is more rational than Von Daniken, but I would be hard pressed to demonstrate it to someone else, given the similarity of arrogant tone and approach. As is typical of your style, in your paragraph above you use mockery and condescending judgement. But one who *consistently* applies scientific method, who isn't just trying to "score points", should attempt to understand what the modern "body of scientific knowledge" has to say. You *assume* that the only way in which classical determinism can be rejected is by asserting acausality. But *science* seems to indicates that, in our universe, a past leads to equally likely futures, only one of which is our present. Thus, our current situation was *caused*, but not *determined*. The smooth 4-dimensional space-time continuum simply isn't any longer a sufficient model, any more than Newton's Absolute Space was a sufficient model after the findings of the 19th century. It is only your clinging to a classical notion, maintaining a model that fits the universe, not as you would LIKE it to be, but as it seems it must be given your current knowledge and imagery, that leads you make the statements you do. Of course, you are in good company: Einstein clung to that world view harder than anyone; "Der Herrgott wurfelt nicht" is a pretty strong bit of "wishful thinking". However, by employing a multiple worlds theory, one can still avoid that uncomfortable randomness without contradicting the nearly overwhelming evidence of non-determinism in the classical sense, embracing a wider notion of completeness that probably would have satisfied Einstein. Note that the multiple worlds view cannot be demonstrated to be true or false, but it is a preferable model to one involving randomness. Einstein's rejection was not *simply* wishful thinking; there are very powerful reasons to reject randomness in scientific models, just as there are very powerful reasons to reject action at a distance no matter how strong the evidence (at times it has seemed quite strong), as there are strong reasons for maintaining a mechanical view of the world and to assume the validity of induction. These reasons have to do with completeness and efficiency of descriptive ability; Occam's Razor honed to a very fine edge. There may be disagreements as to how the world works in these areas, but the bases of the disagreements run quite deep. I haven't seen any evidence that *you* have great insight or knowledge here; your reaction should be to seek such knowledge and insight, not to call people names, mock them, or reject their statements out of hand. >> I have no problem with your ideas. What I do not like is >> your condescending tone, your passing *your* *ideas* as well >> established *knowns*, and your infuriating remarks. (free-will- >> junkies ??? Wishful thinkers ??? Is this name calling or what?) > >If I am wrong about what I am saying being "well established knowns", why >don't YOU summarize where I go "wrong"? If my tone seems condescending, >it seems that the only reason for such a perception is that what I say runs >counter to your personal beliefs, and that is taken as some sort of personal >attack. Why does it seem "that the only reason ..."? You mean seems to you? Do you really feel that if many people find you condescending, the only possible reason is a weakness in each of them? Can you not conceive of a weakness in your own personality? I admit to a fair amount of arrogance; I find many who interact here to be foolish, naive, "inferior". But I also find many to be quite clever, well-educated, thought-provoking, open-minded. When a large number of people with minds I respect criticize me in a similar way, I will react defensively at first, but my objectivity and scientific orientation leads to me consider it to be significant evidence, and I start to reexamine my own behavior. I suggest that you, Rich, have been very unobjective and unscientific toward your own behavior and attitude. I may be wrong; but if you do not carefully and objectively consider the possibility that I am not, then you have rejected science where it touches you most. >Wishful thinkers is an accurate label applied to anyone who works >backwards from a conclusion they want, to build distorted axioms about >the world and then say "See? There is this thing I said I believed in!" You constantly assume and claim *motive* about others; that is ad hominem. You speak about the thinker rather than the thought. That is where the objection lies. You may respond that I am being ad hominem in this article; but it is my intent to speak about *you*, *your attitudes*, *your effect* on the tone of conversation in this forum, but not about the validity of your ideas. I will only talk about accuracy of your ideas in their own terms. But if you claim validity of your ideas in terms other than logical, then I will respond in kind. If you speak with the language of Principia Mathematica, *then* you will earn response in kind. >And free will junkies seems quite appropriate when referring to people who >want free will at any price: distorting the English language, contorting >science to their own ends. If that's not the behavior of a junkie, I don't >know what is. Rich, you want to justify your claim that someone is analogous to a junkie, so you describe junkie-like behavior, and say "if that's not the behavior of a junkie, I don't know what is". Somehow your construction of a tautology is supposed to strengthen your argument. But the argument is not whether junkies are junkies, but whether *the people you are talking about* are junkies. You think they want free will at any price because of the way they distort the language. But it doesn't follow; they may merely have misunderstood the language or its implications; "wanting free will at any price" is a very unscientific, condescending judgement. You argue that they distort the language, by quoting one dictionary definition and interpreting it in a certain way, and frequently repeating it as "*the* definition". But your interpretation is controversial, your definition only one of many, your dictionary arguably an inferior source for a philosophical argument, your definition quite arguably not *the* definition held by the masses or used historically. You may disagree; but that is what it is, a *disagreement*. Calling it "distorting the language" is unscientific, arrogant, contentious, egotistical, and generally being a jerk. Such language would never be accepted in any respectable *scientific* forum. >I guess it's wrong for me to use such names, but OK for you... >(Says something...) You seem to be implying that it wasn't ok for him, but then you should conclude that it wasn't ok for you, and act accordingly. However, in addition, the situation is not symmetric; rather, it runs something like I believe A about B because of C. [A philosophical statement] You say that because you are a junkie and a distorter and a contorter. [An ad hominem statement, since it does not speak strictly in the philosophical language of the first statement, but rather talks about the thinker] Everything I say is obvious or is based on a well-established body of knowledge. [arrogant and unsupported] You are being an arrogant and contentious ass. [A somewhat appropriate response to the above statement, the content of which was name calling, not discussion of A, B, and C] Now, frankly, Rich, I don't expect this to have much affect upon you. I expect you to continue to be a disruptive, misdirecting influence in a forum which could be very deep and interesting. And I realize that this note is mostly an expression of my anger and frustration, and may have no positive effect at all. But perhaps it will cause you to reevaluate a little. Also, I would like to encourage others to *not reply* to contentious notes, even if they contain good or thought provoking ideas (and I certainly think Rich does often express such ideas). This of course applies to my notes too; I certainly want my irrationality and contentiousness to be discouraged and much as anyone's; there is no scientific demonstration of a favored ego. -- Jim Balter (ima!jim) Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com