May 09 2011
A Failure to Engage
In my opinion society is best served with open and vigorous debate about important topics of the day. Such debates are most effective, however, when proponents of opposing views are actually engaging directly with the claims and beliefs of the other side. This requires effort – to understand what the other side believes and why they believe it. This should be taught as a basic intellectual skill in school. Whenever confronted with a controversy, make a sincere effort to understand the best case that each side is putting forward.
In my (admittedly biased) experience, what I will call “fair engagement” is more the exception than the rule. It is easy to slip into accepting a straw-man caricature of the other side. We all do it to some degree. The danger for skeptics is to focus on the most extreme examples of a belief as if they are representative, while ignoring the more reasonable (if still wrong) end of the spectrum. But while there is a continuum, there are those who make a sincere effort to treat their opponents fairly, and those who are stramenticidal maniacs (sorry for my lack of Latin scholarship, but that’s as close as I can come to someone who likes to murder straw men).
The alternative medicine (CAM) community in particular seem to enjoy engaging with straw men of their opponents. It is partly a result of their genuine lack of understanding of our criticisms, but it is also a result of their propaganda. The CAM community (at least collectively) have mastered the marketing of their ideas. They manage to frame the discussion in a way that completely distorts the actual points that are in dispute – in their favor.
My recent appearance on the Dr. Oz show is an excellent example. The discussion was frames as, “why are some doctors afraid of alternative medicine.” Throughout the discussion it was clear that Dr. Oz was making no attempt to engage with my actual points, or to understand my position. He had a cartoon version of my position in his head, and he was going to stick with it no matter what I said. In his cartoon version, what he calls “hold outs” against the coming CAM wave are dismissive, arrogant, and closed-minded.
His questions to me were all loaded with straw men. He claimed that my position was that CAM modalities were not tested, when in fact many have been. Rather, my stated position was that to the degree that they have been tested the results are largely negative.
This is just one public example. I have received hundreds of e-mails from CAM defenders who take the same positions – all straw men of the science-based medicine position. In debates I have been told that “skeptics” claim that we should only accept treatments that have a known mechanism of action. This is a setup, of course, because there are accepted mainstream treatments whose mechanisms are poorly understood.
Kimball Atwood recently pointed me toward another example – a “debate” about Traditional Chinese Medicine. It seems to be a strange debate, when all of the participants seem to be advocates. Here are some of the debating topics:
# Resolved: Acupuncture as a medical intervention technique should be disallowed because its mechanism of action cannot be scientifically proven.
# Resolved: The replacement of traditional Chinese medical vocabulary (that describes diseases, pathologies and treatments) by modern scientific medical vocabulary is an important development and should be encouraged as the standard.
The first is the very straw man I covered above. The lack of a plausible mechanism for acupuncture is surely a problem, but the far bigger problem is that the clinical data is largely negative. Regardless of mechanism, acupuncture does not seem to work.
The second topic is based upon the notion that a key difference between TCM and SBM is vocabulary – the culture in which ideas are understood and expressed. That is another straw man attack I often here – that skeptics do not like TCM or other such systems because they are not stated in the “Western” jargon with which we are familiar. Our skepticism is portrayed as just xenophobia.
I won’t say vocabulary is irrelevant, because words reflect ideas. But it is the underlying ideas that are at issue – do TCM concepts of health and illness reflect reality? Focusing on the jargon is a way of not engaging with the real issue, the real basis of our skepticism, and instead to focus on a superficial aspect that becomes a straw man of our position.
Conclusion
The examples I have given above are just a few of many examples within CAM, and there are many topics that fall into a similar pattern. I rarely, in fact, encounter a reasonable understanding of the skeptical position among proponents of any belief that is a common target of skepticism.
The same is true of many intellectual areas as well, especially wherever there is an emotional component. I have friends and family that range the political spectrum, and I find it interesting to listen to both sides completely mischaracterize the positions of the other side. It’s as if they never actually talk to each other. Each side is isolated within an echo chamber of their own reality.
To be clear – what I am saying is that this kind of behavior is common across all belief systems, and is probably the default mode of human behavior. Skeptics fall into this as well, although the very nature of skepticism involves rigorous self-examination, so hopefully we are a bit more reflective on this behavior than average. But we are certainly not immune.
It is important to remember the importance of making a sincere effort to understand a position with which you disagree, and not to prematurely or excessively focus on those aspects which are easiest to attack, or which likely represent a distorted cartoon of the position.
At the same time, it is important to remember that your position exists on a spectrum, and there are likely people who hold a weaker version of your position. When someone is arguing against a variant of your position, it does not necessarily mean they are attacking a straw man of your position. This false straw man charge is also common.
This problem is the flip side of what I have been describing above, and both seem to result in part from a failure to recognize that opinions exist on a spectrum – both our own and those of others. We should endeavor to understand and engage with the best case that can be made for a position with which we disagree, but also recognize that at times variants of our own positions will become the target of criticism.
65 Responses to “A Failure to Engage”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
One thing that I noticed recently, very depressingly, is the ability for the other side to shut down and not communicate. It’s incredibly hard when you’re talking mostly about opinion and ideas rather than the hard science. My wife posted an article on the Granite State Skeptics website about her take on feminism and skepticism, a counter point to what the Skepchicks have been posting.
There was a heated argument on the site, and on twitter, mostly with one person specifically. What was depressing was that some people were dismissive of the article, refusing to engage, and another outright blocked people that disagreed. I don’t see how this furthers what either side is attempting to do.
It is hard to put a mirror on yourself and take a fresh look from the outside, but it’s almost a requirement if you want to make any kind of progress.
Steve
unusual for you, it was slightly difficult to follow your point.
“Each side is isolated within an echochamber of their own reality.
To be clear – what I am saying is that this kind of behavior is common across all belief systems, and is probably the default mode of human behavior. Skeptics fall into this as well, although the very nature of skepticism involves rigorous self-examination, so hopefully we are a bit more reflective on this behavior than average. But we are certainly not immune.”
Am I missing a subtle point here between positions, and facts. I see the point in trying to see others point of views, both for self analysis as well as bias.To me this is slightly confusing related to things more concrete like homeopathy. Understanding their position will not change the fact that what they are giving is water. Because it is a fact not opinion am I making a straw man, or magnifying their deficits. Sorry trying to wrap my mind around this advice.
I agree Steve.
A flaw I see on the side of the skeptics is they are often too eager to engage the other side when they find a new perversity. They make assumptions that this fresh example is just like several previous ones, instead of thoroughly investigating the case.
This sometimes creates a shaky argument when the facts are pointed out to them. The novice (and occasionally the big champion) tends to defend his original position rather than let it go and find solid ground. No matter how right you are, when you make your argument on shaky evidence or logic, you fail in your intention.
Also, emotions should be removed. If you are going to get personally offended when anyone questions the validity of your position, you don’t belong in the skeptic uniform.
“It’s as if they never actually talk to each other. Each side is isolated within an echochamber of their own reality.”
The fragmentation of the way people obtain information appears to amplify this. When in the past most people obtained their news/information from one of a few different sources, it is now easier to be completely isolated from other perspectives. It is a comfort for many people to hear ideas that reinforce their beliefs, and only the intellectually curious will venture outside of this comfort. This is uncommon for most people regarding many topics.
Here we go, let’s play ‘How long will it take for the skeptic to refight his battle before he can let it go.’
Shermer devoted a chapter of a book to refight his, so we’ve seen it all before. No shame in it – it’s obviously part of the process – but there was no other way for that show to go. Oz’s audience couldn’t possibly understand a straw man metaphor outside of the movie bearing his name. And making technical arguments as to why he’s not a true wizard is not very effective – only pulling back the curtain is. (Ali G was able to have his ‘banana moment’ vs Hovind only because he controlled the editing.)
In the end the truth must win out – evolution does not reward acquiring resources through innaccurate feedback forever. I take comfort in that. The Sala Flower and all. Just keep fighting Steve-o, keep making metaphors and keep pulling ‘em off the fence.
Dr Novella, you do realize that by only attacking your straw men, Oz has paid you a great complement.
In the Land of Oz the greatest Thinker was The Strawman, with his ThD, that is Doctor of Thinkology, and his Bran-new brains, full of pins so he is always sharp.
This is the one thing I don’t like about Penn & Teller’s Bullshit.
Don’t get me wrong, I love the show and I admire them for having the guts to say those things on TV, but they do tend to choose the most radical and stupid version of “the other side”, which doesn’t leave a good impression on neutral people.
At which point any opinion that differs another opinion becomes skepticism?
Aren’t all opposing positions transversely skeptic?
I have proof A is true, you have proof B is true. We are both skeptic of each other.
Ultimate truth is in the eye of the beholder and facts are only facts as long as another fact comes along to dispute it ad infinitum.
In the end everyone apparently needs a straw to cling on to, making the straw a lifeline and therefore to be defended with total abandon.
There is one truth that surmounts all other truths. Once your dead nothing really matters.
petrossaon-
You are using at least 2 meanings of skepticism in your post, and in doing that create a strawman of skepticism itself. The rest of your post is weak attempt at post modernism
“Ultimate truth is in the eye of the beholder and facts are only facts as long as another fact comes along to dispute it ad infinitum.”
This is why science does not deal with “ultimate truths,” and conclusions are always tentative. But this does not mean that we cannot meaningfully say anything about anything. We can say certain things with a reasonable degree of certainty, subject to new information. For only concerned with absolutes will have to turn to ideologies
petrossa
Assuming you intended to imply that A & B are mutually exclusive, the statement “I have proof A is true, you have proof B is true” is not logically valid.
Probably what we both have is not proof, but evidence that supports our positions, and one of us may better evidence to support our position than the other does. Logically, it is possible that neither position is true.
Truth and fact are not subjective, though perception of them is.
The truthfulness of any claim is independent of whether you believe it or not, even if you are Depak Chorpa.
You are entitled to your own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts.
We live in shared single objective reality in a materialistic, naturalistic, & macro-deterministic universe.
Is it a fact that a macro-deterministic universe is just that and not micro-deterministic as well? Which “fact” here are you entitled to distinguish from the other?
I say macro-deterministic because quantum phenomena, such as the radioactive decay of an unstable nucleus, are, as far as we know, not deterministic in nature.
It cannot be precisely determined when a lone neutron will beta decay into a proton, electron and electron anti-neutrino, no matter how much data you have. We can only give a probability curve to predict its decay.
Then perhaps you’re using “deterministic” incorrectly when coupling it with philosophical terms such as materialistic and naturalistic, since when the universe is referred to in that sense, and as a “shared single objective reality,” determinism will apply to all events, including human action.
Mr. Novella:
Everything you said is spot on. However, the key words lie in your first paragraph: “Whenever confronted with a controversy.”
You talked about a continuum. As skeptics, we tend to see life along a spectrum that runs between skepticism and credulity. My guess is that CAM proponents, ghost hunters, spiritualists, conspiracy theorists and other skeptical opponents interpret the world along a similar axis. They may disagree about the most desirable point on that axis, but they still use a fundamentally linear continuum to distinguish the different sides.
However, I suspect the vast majority of people outside the controversy aren’t as concerned with skepticism versus credulity; they’re more focused on tolerance versus intolerance. In other words, the linear axis that we skeptics (and our opponents) use to distinguish ourselves doesn’t account for this second axis that the general population actually finds more important.
Think about it like the failing of the one-dimensional left-right political spectrum to account for political persuasions like libertarianism. That’s why political science now has a two-axis model — one axis for cultural freedom and another for economic freedom.
We can speculate why this is. My personal opinion is that the religious strife of the 17th century, and the subsequent splintering of denominations, set us on a course where tolerance came to be seen as more and more valuable. But the causes are largely irrelevant. What is relevant is that general society now views tolerance as a primary virtue, perhaps the primary virtue that trumps all others.
A friend of mine was all too typical when she once praised Dr. Oz for discussing CAM and concluding, “It may work, it may not, it’s up to each person to decide on their own.” I wanted to scream that it’s the doctor’s job to judge (now a pejorative) the best treatment. And yet my friend clearly viewed this false balance as virtuous.
The problem is that the credulous side of the skeptical-credulous axis has a much easier time accommodating this greater demand for tolerance than the skeptical side. In fact, I’d argue that along this second axis we’re much closer to religious fundamentalists than we are to general society.
I’m not saying we should change. We shouldn’t. We must continue to make judgments and interpret the world according to the best evidence possible — making judgments, in other words.
But I am, well, skeptical that any amount of “fair engagement” will win over a population much more concerned with tolerance than credulity.
@Jeremiah
“…and as a “shared single objective reality,” determinism will apply to all events, including human action.”
No. Events in our shared single objective reality which are quantum in nature are materialistic and naturalistic, but they are not deterministic (as far as we know).
For reference from Wikipedia:
>>>
Determinism (specifically causal determinism) is the concept that events within a given paradigm are bound by causality in such a way that any state (of an object or event) is completely, or at least to some large degree, determined by prior states. In physics, this principle is known as cause-and-effect.
>>>
In philosophy, the theory of materialism holds that the only thing that exists is matter; that all things are composed of material and all phenomena (including consciousness) are the result of material interactions.
>>>
Naturalism is the belief that only natural laws and forces (as opposed to supernatural ones) operate in the world and that nothing exists beyond the natural world.
>>>
Metaphysical naturalism, or ontological naturalism, is a philosophical worldview and belief system that holds that there is nothing but natural things, forces, and causes of the kind studied by the natural sciences.
In these contexts, I could accept the argument that the word materialistic is redundant and unnecessary in conjunction with naturalistic, but not that macro-deterministic is incorrectly used.
The point is to state that the universe is deterministic, except for quantum events and the rare Schrodinger’s cat that is directly affected by individual quantum events.
But my point was that this is not what you said to petrossa as an example of the truthfulness of the factual.
And again, if the universe is deterministic, which most philosophers and many physicists seem to think it is, they are not making exceptions for the quantum events on the grounds of difficulties they have in making predictive micro measurements.
The element of predetermination in determinism will not make an exception for our lack of ability to predict the inevitabilities of all its processes.
My end statement to Jeremiah was a summary of my understanding of the universe. The key applicable point directed to Jeremiah was the part about the shared, objective reality, as in we don’t all have our own subjective facts of reality.
“they are not making exceptions for the quantum events on the grounds of difficulties they have in making predictive micro measurements.”
I’m not sure what you’re saying here. Not being able to predict quantum events is not just due to difficulties in making making micro-measurements. Even if you could have infinitely precise and absolute information about the state of a lone neutron, you could not precisely determine when it would decay because the event is not deterministic.
“The element of predetermination in determinism will not make an exception for our lack of ability to predict the inevitabilities of all its processes.”
It sounds like you are saying that quantum events are impossible to predict even in theory, but are still deterministic. If that is the case, you are not defining deterministic differently the way I have heard it typically defined.
“My end statement to Jeremiah was a summary of my understanding of the universe. The key applicable point directed to Jeremiah”
Sorry, I meant petrossa
Quantum events are not possible for humans to predict with accuracy, but then neither are any other events of nature over the long term predictable to anything like a certainty. Predictability by human logic or its mathematics is not the proper measure of the fundamentally deterministic nature of causation. See Dennett for his philosophical views on the matter and attempts to reconcile our concepts of free will with what would seem to be a deterministic universe.
Have to agree with Karl here, for the most part. The inability to predict quantum events does not appear to be a limitation of human technology… this appears to be a feature of quantum events.
# ccbowers
That as pretty vicious and incorrect as well. Try to keep emotions out of discussions
# Karl Withakay
Truth and fact are in fact (pun intended) exactly the same. Both are observed by us. There is absolutely no way of determining if either one exists outside of our common understanding as homo sapiens.
Quote me:
To my mind one views things backwards. Anthropocentric. We exist, therefore everything around must exist for us. The (in)famous Goldilocks Zone for example. Objectively such a zone doesn’t exist. It is to us because we are there. Other lifeforms most likely exist in other configurations and are out there looking for their ‘Goldilocks Zones’ and skipping ours because it’s not like theirs.
Things happen because they happen. In such a vast, most likely multiple, universe happenstance is more then enough to explain us. And anything remotely like us elsewhere. In an infinite, or next to, flow of random energy there is no limit to what could form.
We are by nature inflicted by a brain that forms patterns from events, if they exist or not is irrelevant to it. Due to our lack of capacity to comprehend the vast scale of it all we start to see patterns were they are not. To us everything gripping together like clockwork on the macroscopic scale is practically proof it’s all meant to be.
As soon as we take the microscopic events into account things become a whole lot less evident. Particles being just random clumps of energy, changing into one and another on the go is to me a distinct indication it’s all fleeting happenstance we observe. We just lack the timescale, timespan, to see it is just a minute coming together of events which will be gone in the next fleeting instant.
Only chance can fully explain all. Only out of nothing can come something. Anything else lands you in a neverending tree of answers raising more questions then they answer.
Only out of nothing can come something? A bigger question could be where did nothing come from?
Only in the absence of any restrictions (laws) anything can happen since there’s nothing to prevent it from happening.
To go beyond that one enters the realm of philosophy and to me that’s pure mental masturbation. Fun, but pretty futile.
petrosa,
So far you haven’t offered anything but your philosophy – but then who’s counting.
You have my permission to call it whatever you want.
Since there’s no rebuttal i assume you can’t find fault.
Petrossa,
Are you gambling on the “many worlds interpretation” of quantum mechanics being true. In that case, yes, the indeterminacy of the quantum world disappears.
Or perhaps you actually do mean the cosmological “multiverse”, in which case, indeterminacy remains, but the problem of the cosmological constants disappears.
Or perhaps you mean both, in which case you have the “best of both worlds”, so to speak, but at the expense of an complete lack of evidence.
Nevermind, we all have our own pet ideas that we would like desperately to be true despite a complete lack of evidence.
Jeremiah
“Quantum events are not possible for humans to predict with accuracy, but then neither are any other events of nature over the long term predictable to anything like a certainty.”
Yes, but the reasons for the inability to predict other events is different from the reasons why quantum events are inherently impossible to precisely predict. Non-quantum events are at least theoretically predictable with precision. Theoretically, if you had enough precise data, and a powerful enough computer (even if in practice such a computer would need more transistors than the number of fundamental particles in the universe), you could predict the exact positions of the planets in this solar system in 5 billion years time. In practice, there are too many variables and the system is too chaotic.
But no amount of infinitely precise data with an infinitely powerful computer will allow to to accurately predict precisely when that lone neutron will decay.
That is the why I qualify the deterministic nature of the universe with the word macro. It’s an acknowledgment of the probabilistic nature of the quantum universe.
Jeremiah-
Well, it came from nowhere,of course
“That as pretty vicious and incorrect as well. Try to keep emotions out of discussions”
I’m not sure what you are referring to, nothing was intended as viscious… you must have a lower threshold for visciousness than I do. Sometimes the typed word leaves much to the imagination. Also I’m not sure where I expressed emotions here, but I don’t think there is anything inherently wrong with emotions.
>Theoretically, if you had enough precise data, and a powerful enough computer (**), you could predict the exact positions of the planets in this solar system in 5 billion years time. In practice, there are too many variables and the system is too chaotic.<
What I said in other words.
Jeremiah
“What I said in other words.”
Except you didn’t include the part I did that distinguished those chaotic systems from random, probabilistic systems. Yes part of what I said is what you said, but I added:
“But no amount of infinitely precise data with an infinitely powerful computer will allow us to accurately predict precisely when that lone neutron will decay.”
Thus distinguishing chaotic but deterministic systems from quantum, probabilistic systems.
Infinitely precise data is unachievable because of quantum effects.
Reality effectively truncates at the Planck level. Trying to carry out calculations to more precision than the Planck level allows won’t be successful.
There is another problem, a great deal of the universe is not causally connected to the future yet. Until it is causally connected is is going to be not possible to predict in what way it will influence the future.
KW,
But you’ve only distinguished them as unpredictable by human means, not indeterminate as to their cause or nature. Which I also said.
d2,
>Infinitely precise data is unachievable because of quantum effects.<
Does that mean that since we're presently unable to recapitulate the past with certainty, there wasn't any certainty as to its future?
Or that since we can't precisely evaluate the ever changing present, there will in theory be an equal lack of precision in the present's causative relation to its future?
Jeremiah
“But you’ve only distinguished them as unpredictable by human means, not indeterminate as to their cause or nature. Which I also said.”
No, I thought I made it clear that I distinguished between things that were unpredictable in practice (chaotic systems) and things which are truly indeterminate (quantum systems).
Setting aside practical reality for a moment, it’s possible to construct a mathematical N-body model where it becomes more difficult to predict as you increase the number of bodies due to the increasing complexity of the model (the system becomes more chaotic), not because it is inherently indeterminate. But you can’t construct a mathematical model of a single neutron and determine when it will decay because that is a fundamentally indeterminate quantum event.
Things that are impossible to predict accurately in practice due to complexity are chaotic. Quantum systems are not impossible to predict accurately in practice due to complexity; they are impossible to predict accurately due to their inherently indeterminate nature, no matter how simple the system.
“they are impossible to predict accurately due to their inherently indeterminate nature, no matter how simple the system.”
Prove that they have an inherently indeterminate nature. You can’t because that’s just a premise based on an unproven and unprovable assumption. As I stated, noted scientists and philosophers have made the opposite assumption.
Therefor what you claim to be factually true is instead factually uncertain by any scientifically accepted standard.
Jeremiah
I assume you’re not going to prove that they are deterministic either, if that is your claim.
“Noted scientists and philosophers”, that’s not particularly convincing. Noted scientists and philosophers deny anthropogenic global warming as well. Noted scientists and philosophers believe in alien visitations via UFO. The consensus of relevant physicists and philosophers would be a bit more compelling.
Actually there does seem to be a consensus, because for example Schroedinger, Einstein, Bohm, Penrose and many other physicists have never accepted the claim that quantum theory disproves determinism. Nor does the failure to disprove it prove it, and I’ve made no truth-factual claims to the contrary. It’s simply been the default position historically based on a philisophical consensus, which is of course what our science has been based on in turn.
Jeremiah, if there is determinism, it must necessarily be coupled to all regions that are causally connected to the event that is deterministic. In other words, if you want to consider the event at a specific point in space time to be deterministic, you need access to all regions that are causally connected to that point in space time. You don’t have access to those regions for any future point in space time.
In other words, you can’t know, even in principle, if there is a gamma ray photon coming from deep space that will strike that specific point in space time just before you are trying to make your deterministic prediction. There is no way you can know about the gamma ray photon because that region of space time is not causally connected to you yet.
Even if we had infinitely precise initial conditions (we don’t), and we were able to do calculations based on those infinitely precise initial conditions (we can’t because computations with real numbers take infinite computing power), those initial conditions are not knowable because they are not causally connected to us yet.
If you want to posit an oracle that can predict conditions that are not causally connected yet, just use the oracle to predict the future.
d2u,
If the universe is deterministic, it’s not required that we’ve been causally determined to have the need to know it.
In any case if causation in the universe is sequential from the big bang to the present, we are all and have been causally connected from the getgo.
I must say, your thinking in this respect is amazingly juvenile. In a deterministic system, the nature of the future would not be dependent on our ability to predict it. We predict whatever we have cause to do.
No, because during inflation, the universe expanded faster than the speed of light, so the regions that were causally connected before inflation became disconnected after inflation.
I see. Causation ceases at the top speed of light but the caused objects somehow keep on causing. Somebody get Penrose on the phone before he makes a further fool of himself.
And here i rest my case what is philosophy nowaday. All of the above after i said:
“You have my permission to call it whatever you want. Since there’s no rebuttal i assume you can’t find fault.”
is just words strung together in a sentence without the least informational content. Abstract concepts whose definition is at best soft-boiled battle it out in a flood of half understood principles poorly applied.
In other words, philosophy. Men’s curse of intelligent fruitful discussion.
Jeremiah, yes, causation can’t propagate faster than light speed. If it could, then there would be time travel and the concept of causation would not have meaning because the past could be changed.
Its funny how often the discussions here end up on this or related topics
d2u,
I see, so somehow there are now at least two separate causative systems in the post bang universe, each going on its merry way. And thus neither can be determinative unless one can be in touch with the other. All in the multiverse that we don’t touch included.
Get Hawking on the phone as well and make it a conference call.
petrossa says that all this is demonstratively illogical and therefor philosophy is determinately bad. He’s in a third yet undetermined form of universe of course.
@bowers,
>The inability to predict quantum events does not appear to be a limitation of human technology… this appears to be a feature of quantum events.Its funny how often the discussions here end up on this or related topics<
Funny that you see quantum events as somehow uncaused while at the same time aware that the theory holds that the big bang was the final cause of all subsequent events. That it came with laws that were not only determinative, but impossible to break. So that what have you, or what can you have, other than a lawfully and fully self enforcing deterministic system?
My challenge for Steve Novella: Make one Neurologica post where the comments do not become a debate on Determinism.
I have never felt that it could be said with certainty whether the universe is deterministic or not, but the posters here are becoming so predictable that perhaps I will need to change my position
As you were.
Well it was either that or Nitric Oxide.
“Funny that you see quantum events as somehow uncaused while at the same time aware that the theory holds that the big bang was the final cause of all subsequent events. That it came with laws that were not only determinative, but impossible to break. So that what have you, or what can you have, other than a lawfully and fully self enforcing deterministic system?”
I make no claim about this at all. You are the one with the strongest opinion on the subject, and it is not clear your knowledge matches your certainty. I tend to be agonist on the subject, because there are a lot of unknowns that need to be known in order to answer these questions. At the level that I see the world, it is deterministic… but whether that holds up in an abosulte sense I will leave to others to discuss/figure out.
Your statements about philosophical and scientific consensus are overstatements. There doesnt appear to be a consensus at all
@ccbowers
>The inability to predict quantum events does not appear to be a limitation of human technology… this appears to be a feature of quantum events.I make no claim about this at all.Your statements about philosophical and scientific consensus are overstatements.<
Way to beg and back away the question.
Weak attempts at post modernism?
# Jeremiah
“petrossa says that all this is demonstratively illogical and therefor philosophy is determinately bad. He’s in a third yet undetermined form of universe of course.”
I like that. The universe were it doesn’t matter one way or the other. Were you are all wrong and i am right.
Nice universe, it’s mine. Please do not enter.
Jeremiah-
If there were a consensus their would not be multiple interpretations of QM, unless you are saying one is now the consensus view. I do not know this to be true. The postmodernist comment was not directed at you.
Here is a thought experiment to determine if you really believe that the universe is purely deterministic at all levels:
Lets say you go back 13 billion years in time (for example), and you make an identical copy of the universe, identical in every way… would you expect both universes to procede through time in the same exact way? Would all particles interact in the same way and all the radioactive atoms to decay in the same way down to the particular atoms and subatomic particles involved? How about if we started again precisely at the big bang?
I can’t say anything more than I don’t know the answer. Apparently you do?
ccbowers,
The trouble with your thought experiment is that you’ve imagined there could be a copy of something that was identical in energy and matter, time, place, and any purpose, and yet will still be a copy.
And it’s not about my alleged belief in determinism but rather about disbelief in the alternative.
And the consensus as to determinacy or indeterminacy has been about inevitability and the nature of causation, not about the nature of what’s been inevitably caused.
Jeremiah,
“The trouble with your thought experiment is that you’ve imagined there could be a copy of something that was identical in energy and matter, time, place, and any purpose, and yet will still be a copy.”
He’s imagined that there is a copy, not that it is possible for there to be a copy. If, like ccbowers, you cannot answer the question why don’t you just say so?
“And it’s not about my alleged belief in determinism but rather about disbelief in the alternative.”
Do you mean that you actively disbelieve in the alternative? If so, what reason or reasons do you have to do so?
“And the consensus as to determinacy or indeterminacy has been about inevitability and the nature of causation, not about the nature of what’s been inevitably caused.”
I’m afraid I need a translation.
BillyJoe7,
I disbelieve in an indeterminate universe. It would be dependent on an uncaused cause, the nature of which I am unable to conceive of.
If you and Bowers can conceive of one, then that’s fine with me.
I also can’t believe that a copy of a cause will be other than a copy of that cause. If that’s not a good enough answer for you, that’s fine with me also.
My point to begin with is that indeterminism is not a fact of nature just because it makes you happy to believe it.
And if you felt what I was trying to say about the relationship of the inevitable to cause was pointless, then that’s fine as well.
At least Bowers was trying to say something positive about indeterminacy. You just seem hostile to anyone who disagrees with that philosophy?
I’ve tried to point out that one can’t know anything to a certainty, but can be a lot more uncertain of some things than others.
I simply find that the uncertainty principle as a function of science is not a principle that negates the causative principles of nature.
But like someone said above, we’ve already been through this on a prior thread.
Jeremiah-
“It would be dependent on an uncaused cause, the nature of which I am unable to conceive of. If you and Bowers can conceive of one, then that’s fine with me.”
-that is the definition of argument from personal incredulity
“My point to begin with is that indeterminism is not a fact of nature just because it makes you happy to believe it.”
– keep in mind that I make no claims at all. I will leave it to physics to determine if the best interpretation of QM is deterministic or not. Right now my understanding is that it is not settled.
The ironic thing is that I find myself on the opposite side of this argument, usually I’m arguing with Deepak Chopra disciple telling me that anything is possible. I view the world as deterministic in everyway that matters to me, I just sensed a level of uncertainty that I objected to on the subject
BJ-
I’m curious about your take on that thought experiment above
Woops above I meant “I just sensed a level of certainty that I objected to on the subject”
@ccbowers,
>I will leave it to physics to determine if the best interpretation of QM is deterministic or not. Right now my understanding is that it is not settled.<
QM hasn't attempted to determine if there was a universal final cause, so as I've said before, I don't see that as the problem.
If you've argued for determinism as most probable, then where do you see that my position differs? Neither one of us seems happy to believe in the opposite philosophy.
And what's wrong with an argument from personal incredulity if it's mine, but not wrong if the personal incredulity is yours?
So what if I can't conceive of an uncaused cause.
If you can, and therefor think I should, is that evidence that my incredulity is unwarranted? It might be if anyone has ever found an uncaused cause to a scientific degree of certainty, but otherwise to be incredulous is not a crime.
“If you can, and therefor think I should, is that evidence that my incredulity is unwarranted?”
The difference is that I’m not making that argument. In fact I have the same problem understanding such a concept, but I refuse to let that determine my position. Enough of the world is unintuitive enough for me to know that I shouldnt let that sway me too much. Personal incredulity says more about the person unwilling/unable to comprehend than it does about the reality
But in actuality, bowers, you were making that an argument and I wasn’t. You proposed an uncaused cause and I simply don’t know what that would be. Wheeler, for example, said the same, that he could never grasp a concept that required something to have come from nothing. Hawking on the other hand has no problem with it.
And don’t start with the ad hominems, please. I don’t know if you think you’re smarter than either of them, but I do know that I think I’m not.
I’m quite sure i am
Only it’s not something i did so i feel no pride for it. I was born with this brain and all i did in life was trying to dumb it down with whatever chemical substance you can imagine.
It sure sucks major to be aware constantly, i destroyed my pancreas by selfmedicating on alcohol. Those were nice years when i was in an alcohol induced dumbness.
And when i was nicely dying my stupid partner hauled my ass to hospital. So here i am sober and aware again, to scared of death to commit suicide. Bummer.
petrossa,
How could you be smarter than those guys when I’m not and yet am smarter than you? http://theness.com/neurologicablog/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif
# Jeremiah
That’s conundrum i have to mull over. Mmmm. Got it, you are delusional
Don’t worry many megalomaniacs did well in life 