Explaining Reality

[Morality Games]

What good is that thought? It depends on what you want from an answer. If you want a definition and I say a kick is defined as that then that is a good answer. To say that thought is useless without action presupposes that the person thinks that a propositions usefulness is the utility is provides. I can say the best knowledge is the knowledge that serves no art (as Aristotle did in Metaphysics. I believe it is in part on if you want to check).

Not a Utilitarian, but even Aristotle's non-art serving knowledge contributes to utility (ennobling the learned man, propelling him toward eudemonia, or well-being).

[grandpa]

Quote by: ryanatau The point is you might not see the value of one system over your but that is only because you believe it. Our beliefs create our standpoint to the world but our standpoint creates our beliefs.

When it comes to reality, take your pick. Even in the face of the most contradictory evidence, someone will always say, "I STILL BELIEVE."

Grandpa h.

[Morality Games]

The point is you might not see the value of one system over your but that is only because you believe it.

But humans do have a nature and values do have functions -- note that humans in general today live longer, healthier, and more active lives than our predecesors (think back to the morality of the peasantry in Medieval Times). It is true people get used to their values (after all, they work well enough to satisfy their wants), and are reluctant to give them up, but the naturalistic form of humankind suggests that, in general terms, there is a way of going about things that would contribute to overall well-being.

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: grandpa When it comes to reality, take your pick. Even in the face of the most contradictory evidence, someone will always say, "I STILL BELIEVE." Grandpa h.

Contradictory evidence only exist for select claims. Yet many people continue to try and apply these universally. As if evolution disproves every religion by default.

[ryanatau]

Quote by: Morality Games Not a Utilitarian, but even Aristotle's non-art serving knowledge contributes to utility (ennobling the learned man, propelling him toward eudemonia, or well-being).

Yes but it serves not practical value. In fact it creates more happiness because it is knowledge of the immutable that serves no other value then that it is knowable. It he does not say it is good to understand forms because it helps us do some action. He say it is good to know the forms in itself.

[ryanatau]

Quote by: Morality Games But humans do have a nature and values do have functions -- note that humans in general today live longer, healthier, and more active lives than our predecesors (think back to the morality of the peasantry in Medieval Times). It is true people get used to their values (after all, they work well enough to satisfy their wants), and are reluctant to give them up, but the naturalistic form of humankind suggests that, in general terms, there is a way of going about things that would contribute to overall well-being.

Only if you define well-being as longer life, health, etc. But that is a value judgment. That is the point. If you believe that is the right way to live then it become the right way to live. How do you say which consequences of a given life style are best? Longer life is only good if you believe it is good. Others may say it is not the length but the intensity (not quantity but quality). Regardless how do we judge which of these is the best without at some point say "I believe this is the best. Therefore..." and the other judgments follow.

[grandpa]

Quote by: HelioPrime Contradictory evidence only exist for select claims. Yet many people continue to try and apply these universally.

So what then do we have? Disproved claims paired with unsubstantiated ones.
If one "knows" that God does exist it is not evidence of anything except faith, and faith is always difficult to measure. When it comes to supporting reason, religion remains abysmally poor.

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

Quote by: ryanatau Only if you define well-being as longer life, health, etc. But that is a value judgment.

True, and it's not often intended that we get value judgments from scientific facts and theories. Those are usually supposed to come first, then we apply our judgments.

Grandpa h.

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: grandpa So what then do we have? Disproved claims paired with unsubstantiated ones. If one "knows" that God does exist it is not evidence of anything except faith, and faith is always difficult to measure. When it comes to supporting reason, religion remains abysmally poor. Grandpa h.

Yet do you know God does not exist?

No.

You can counter specific claims and then use them across the board but then your still left convincing everyone else to accept your view.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: rez LOL. I guess this would be an example of falling for the trap. Can you or can you not problem solve? If you can problem solve, then please establish how you do so. You can't figure out what makes a person a good detective and a bad detective? Please articulate your thoughts and answer the questions provided. EDIT TO ADD: How are my questions dishonest? Fact. Fact. Fact. There has to be a decision made at some point. If we never made a decision, we would of never landed on the moon, or designed the internet. There were conflicting explanations on how to land on the moon, but one explanation rose to the top. How? Considering we landed on the moon a while ago, we have new methods now. Better ways of getting there. Pretty cool huh?

Yeah, flying to the moon on my Harry Potter broom was cool.. (just kidding!).

The building of a rocketship and related things, such as computers, are inventions and not explainations.

A good Detective would hunt for things or events that are detectable, and find what he was seeking. A poor detective could not even find something that is right under his nose.

About which choice they made about how to land on the moon, well, they put someone in charge of making a choice and did it the way the boss told them too.

You must put someone in charge, someone who will be responsible for both making the right choice, or taking the blame for the wrong choice.
The boss was partly lucky because the landing gear did not sink deep into top soil (cosmic dust) when they landed on the moon.

Is somene in charge of the universe, did someone create the universe like we create rocketships? Most scientists agree that the universe was not scientifically created by an intelligence.

Now what criterion (should) we prefer to use as the best one for explaning the universe? I assume you mean how did it happen to come about form it's orgin?

Perhaps none of them yet, it might be too early in our history to be able to comprehend this no matter what methods we use to try and figure it out, no explanation that would hold water without using the imagination as our bucket. The jury did not see the crime, they must imagine how it happened based on the evidence the dectective uncovered, as compared to their own personality trates and experiences. That is why lawyers are so carefull about jury selecton. So here you have two different kinds of a jury, the religious jury and the scientific jury. They will not deliver the same judgement. But wait, you might have a 3rd choice for a jury, one that is not bias ether way.

And so which explanation is the best is not as important as establishing a student group that is not bias. Which is hard to do when you are talking about older adults that do not have the flexabilty of not being bias from the get-go.

Even if the lawyers proved that reasonable doubt made O J Simpson not guilty, a majority of white people would still shout "guilty". So the real question is "can we somehow eliminate the human trait for being bias"?

Well, good luck with that one... more gene research perhaps? And yet, science has found no gene that makes people religious, or one that makes people think in a scientific manner, so I guess we are stuck with a bias population containing a diversity of opinion.

So my answer to your question is, you cannot currently have an answer to what method of explanation is best suited for everyone. Only which method is agreeable with your own bias.

If you wish I can elaborate on my explanation.

[rez]

Quote by: ryanatau The point is you might not see the value of one system over your but that is only because you believe it. Our beliefs create our standpoint to the world but our standpoint creates our beliefs. I cannot look at the world as if I were you because I am me. If you say it only makes sense to judge to explanations by their usefulness then that means that the set of you beliefs creates that viewpoint of the world. And further, that viewpoint makes it so you cannot understand any beliefs that do not fit it.

There is a universe. We want to explain the universe. People want their explanations to be taken seriously. How does one pick one person's explanation over another explanation?

Usefulness is the goal here. If it is not useful, then its not worth while.

For me all I can do is trust that that is how you perceive the value of the world. That there is one good answer to number 4. I see many good answers to number 4 and yours is just one among many.

Please list the other good answers.

What good is that thought? It depends on what you want from an answer.

The answer has to work in some way. There needs to be some cause and effect to place.

If you want a definition and I say a kick is defined as that then that is a good answer.

This is not about definitions, this is about explanations. Explaining the events in reality is the important issue here.

So there are different ways to look at the world. Different perspectives and aspects of the world. All of these perspective might well lead to an identity but that identity might very well depend on how you order you beliefs.

There are many perspectives in this world, the ones that are taken serious are the ones that are most effective and the ones that people learn from.

[rez]

Quote by: HelioPrime Yet do you know God does not exist? No. You can counter specific claims and then use them across the board but then your still left convincing everyone else to accept your view.

This is not about proving a negative. Get with it.

This is about investigating phenomena and constructing explanations that fit with the clues. Religion does not use the clues to make judgments. Supernaturalists take no action in explaining reality. It is just arm chair thinking.

[rez]

Quote by: Technosoul The building of a rocketship and related things, such as computers, are inventions and not explainations.

Get with it everybody. Rocketships and Computers were imagined ideas constructed with the clues given by reality. It was the explanations that were given that enabled people to physically construct a machine that could process numbers. It is about taking something not found in nature, and then later constructing something to perform a certain function.

A good Detective would hunt for things or events that are detectable, and find what he was seeking.

A good detective would also hunt for relevant information that may or may not have something to do with the case.

About which choice they made about how to land on the moon, well, they put someone in charge of making a choice and did it the way the boss told them too.

No, they chose the answer that actually came out to work the best. There were many scientists working on the explanation, each working together to come to an answer that actually WORKED. An answer that actually explained how to do something.

You must put someone in charge, someone who will be responsible for both making the right choice, or taking the blame for the wrong choice. The boss was partly lucky because the landing gear did not sink deep into top soil (cosmic dust) when they landed on the moon.

Someone is put in charge to oversee how the explanations are moving along. This objective is to try to make the complex turn out to be simple and easy flowing.

Is somene in charge of the universe, did someone create the universe like we create rocketships? Most scientists agree that the universe was not scientifically created by an intelligence.

"Is someone in charge of the universe" is a question. When you problem solve, you have to ask questions that are most relevant to the problem. So that means you have to know something that is relevant to the problem. What is most relevant to the problem that would lead you to such a question? What makes you think that comparing a rocketship to a universe is sensible?

The jury did not see the crime, they must imagine how it happened based on the evidence the dectective uncovered, as compared to their own personality trates and experiences. That is why lawyers are so carefull about jury selecton. So here you have two different kinds of a jury, the religious jury and the scientific jury. They will not deliver the same judgement. But wait, you might have a 3rd choice for a jury, one that is not bias ether way.

Wrong. Way wrong. The jury is going to make the selection based on what works.

When you say you have the goods, you deliver the goods. Simple as that. Are you suggesting people are unable to distinguish between what works and what does not work?

And so which explanation is the best is not as important

The best explanations explains what was set out to be explained.

And yet, science has found no gene that makes people religious, or one that makes people think in a scientific manner, so I guess we are stuck with a bias population containing a diversity of opinion.

This is nonsense. Investigation has found that humans are logical in nature, and no matter how artistic one is they are still logical. That is how things are processed in our brains.

So my answer to your question is, you cannot currently have an answer to what method of explanation is best suited for everyone. Only which method is agreeable with your own bias.

Stop thinking in your head that the explanation has to "please" people. No. The explanation has to explain something. The explanation is not suppose to appeal to people it is suppose to explain an event.

[rez]

Quote by: ryanatau Only if you define well-being as longer life, health, etc. But that is a value judgment.

This is not about definitions. This is about trying to figure out a solution to the problem.

I don't care if you think living longer is better then living for a short period of time.

The goal was to solve the specific disease that was killing people, and now it has be solved.

I am not talking about language here, I am talking about specific identified problems that need to be solved.

Religion identified these problems too, and their way of solving the problem was through words, or running around in a camp fire. Take your pick of which methods supernatural religions used to solve the problem.

[Morality Games]

Contradictory evidence only exist for select claims. Yet many people continue to try and apply these universally. As if evolution disproves every religion by default.

Evolution contradicts religion in many ways aside from the literal, and these are just as upsetting to atheists -- in a world where not everyone can be a scientist, the authenticity and credibility of organizations claiming to supply truthful information is intergral to what we decide to basis our views on.

Religions insisted they provided authentic truths.

The truths they provided for all their history up to this point were contrary to evolution.

Evolution appears to be true.

Therefore, the authenticity of religion is undermined.

And:

Religions places emphasis on their traditions as a means to provide humans with the best life possible.

Religious tradition held certain existential claims regarding the origins of man.

These claims are contrary to evolution.

Religous authorities and adherents backpeddled after it became it too apparent evolution was true for arguing against it to look credible (although they fought for a long time).

Therefore, although they salvaged what they could, religious authorities and adherents broke a defining part of their tradition in order to save the rest.

So, they employed a double-standard, which discredits them.

Nobody likes double-standards except the people who use them.

Only if you define well-being as longer life, health, etc.

The term 'well-being' was coined to refer to a state of happiness and healthiness and has continously been used in that context. If someone violates that convention, then their use of the term is merely nominal until enough people start using it in that context for the new meaning to be considered the standard convention. The old meaning is retired or placed under a new term.

But that is a value judgment. That is the point. If you believe that is the right way to live then it become the right way to live.

Yes and yes, but do you look no further than that?

How do you say which consequences of a given life style are best?

I consider my abstract understanding of my species, look at individual persons and see how their values are working out for them, and conceive of new values that might improve their health. My observation goes that living organisms can accomplish much in such a state, and not much in an unhealthy state.

Longer life is only good if you believe it is good.

People typically do. That's why I mentioned it.

Others may say it is not the length but the intensity (not quantity but quality).

People typically want both. That's why I mentioned happiess and healthiness too ... the whole bundle. Notice I used the term 'and' and not 'or', meaning (under formal logic) these conditions are not to be considered seperate from each other.

Regardless how do we judge which of these is the best without at some point say "I believe this is the best. Therefore..." and the other judgments follow.

I don't disagree, but the fact is 'judgments' emerge from features of being human that can be either satisfied, unsatisfied, or somewhere between the two -- no judgment that is in continued use fails in every respect, but overall, logically, there are some values which, even if they are not presently in use, would function better in helping people find their path in life.

The crux of your criticism of my view, though not explicited is this:

There is no universal authority (God, Natural Law, or Human Nature) you can refer to which proves that people ought to value or do as I say they should -- that is, I am standing alone with my views, as though I were a god, natural law, or nature in myself.

Well, the last part is right, and since I can recognize features of myself in other beings, I can, on basis of my knowledge, reccomend values which might better satisfy the wants from which their present values emerged -- which I do because something in my nature (perhaps compassion or selfishness) requires it of me.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: rez Get with it everybody. Rocketships and Computers were imagined ideas constructed with the clues given by reality. It was the explanations that were given that enabled people to physically construct a machine that could process numbers. It is about taking something not found in nature, and then later constructing something to perform a certain function. ************************************************ If that something is not found in nature where did you take it form? La La land? ************************************************ A good detective would also hunt for relevant information that may or may not have something to do with the case. ************************************************ True, he might want some info about what is on TV tonight. ( at least we can agree on one thing ). ************************************************ No, they chose the answer that actually came out to work the best. There were many scientists working on the explanation, each working together to come to an answer that actually WORKED. An answer that actually explained how to do something. ************************************************ That is a funny one, So they tested the landing gear on the moon's surface before they got to the moon or before they knew for sure how soft or hard the surface might be, is what you are saying? ************************************************ Someone is put in charge to oversee how the explanations are moving along. This objective is to try to make the complex turn out to be simple and easy flowing. ************************************************* Doubt if his job discription was as simple as you make it sound. If they had two explanations then someone must pick out which one they should go by. Which is the point of your question, how would he pick the right explanation or rather, the right method to make the thing work the best. ************************************************** "Is someone in charge of the universe" is a question. When you problem solve, you have to ask questions that are most relevant to the problem. So that means you have to know something that is relevant to the problem. What is most relevant to the problem that would lead you to such a question? What makes you think that comparing a rocketship to a universe is sensible? *************************************************** First off the universe is not a poblem, nor is the exsistance of the universe a problem, so what is your problem with the universe? Love it or leave it. Why are making it a problem? Why compare a rocketship to a universe? #1 - It has a self contained environment that had to be like the one in nature so that the user could survive. #2 - it has moving parts that must work in harmoney with other parts to create a funtional system that works much like our egosystem does. ********************************************************* Wrong. Way wrong. The jury is going to make the selection based on what works. ****************************************************** Wrong wrong - the lawyers take turns selecting the jury not the jury. **************************************************** When you say you have the goods, you deliver the goods. Simple as that. Are you suggesting people are unable to distinguish between what works and what does not work? ***************************************************** What made you think that people did not know that the universe works? I never said that. *************************************************** The best explanations explains what was set out to be explained. This is nonsense. Investigation has found that humans are logical in nature, and no matter how artistic one is they are still logical. That is how things are processed in our brains. **************************************************** Where did I say anything about art? However why do you think that we cannot explain things logically using art, people do it all the time? ***************************************************** Stop thinking in your head that the explanation has to "please" people. No. The explanation has to explain something. The explanation is not suppose to appeal to people it is suppose to explain an event. *************************************************** Is the person who wrote that rule book the Boss Man? Can I call him Moses? If the explanations are not given to please the people who want to know then who do they please? What other purpose do they have? My cat could care less.

Read between the dotted lines to follow the debate above.

Well, you had fun attempting to take snipper shots at my explanations.
although you overlooked the totality of what I said. Your chopping block approch had a pre-bias desire to do your best to make your own points while overlookng the logic in my review of a situtation. Your theroy that everyone is born to be logical is not being well supported by the way you debated the concept that I related (which was just form one angle of my many vantage points of inspection). I suggest you go back to the Spock school of logic and do some more star trecking.

[rez]

Science, being run by people, is ever bit as political as any other institution.

1) There is a universe.
2) We want to explain it.
3) There are many competing and conflicting explanations.
4) What criterion will we use to prefer one explanation over another?
5) When we have chosen an explanation should we stick with it?

Scientists can be as political as they want. But when it comes down to it, if the explanation that they give does not work, then it does not work. There is no reason to fake an explanation. The politics comes from people thinking that their explanation works. Everybody thinks they are right. However, the true test is to show that they are right.

Theists can't do that. You have to take their word for it. It doesn't work like that though and people feel disrespected because nobody respects a supernatural claim.

[rez]

Quote by: Technosoul Read between the dotted lines to follow the debate above. Well, you had fun attempting to take snipper shots at my explanations. although you overlooked the totality of what I said. Your chopping block approch had a pre-bias desire to do your best to make your own points while overlookng the logic in my review of a situtation. Your theroy that everyone is born to be logical is not being well supported by the way you debated the concept that I related (which was just form one angle of my many vantage points of inspection). I suggest you go back to the Spock school of logic and do some more star trecking.

None of your responses are relevant. Please stick to the topic.

There are certain methods to go about explaining things.

[HelioPrime]

Are certain methods 100% proven correct?

Or am I suppose to just accept them because they are the "natural" causes, and in all cases of science we accept the natural cause over any kind of supernatural cause.

[rez]

Quote by: HelioPrime Are certain methods 100% proven correct?

What the hell is this suppose to mean?


How do you go about solving problems? Could you describe the steps?