tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post474597851474782272..comments2023-10-10T08:02:18.073-04:00Comments on Rationally Speaking: Double podcast teaser! Vegetarianism and the relationship between science and valuesUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger79125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-45293224679457560022011-04-17T21:01:01.044-04:002011-04-17T21:01:01.044-04:00Another approach to the "these animals wouldn...Another approach to the "these animals wouldn't exist" argument (and many others) is to keep the focus on the issue of (lack of) consent. In this case, we could ask, "since you wouldn't exist without your parents, do they have a right to kill and/or eat you?" Obviously we have to make concessions for cognitive differences in some respects, but the principle is there.Gatogreensleeveshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04422843766695177998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-73116254289871288262011-04-17T19:20:06.079-04:002011-04-17T19:20:06.079-04:00Listening to the podcast preview, one thing that s...Listening to the podcast preview, one thing that sticks out in conversations I've read is that too many people focus on the animals suffering argument and not "the enjoyable remainder of an animal's life" element. If you already acknowledge that they can suffer, then you can reasonably assume that they (were they able to give you consent) would not give you consent to rob them of the potentially pleasurable remainders of their lives. It has also been said (and I don't have the statistics at hand) that going vegetarian saves roughly 99 animals' lives per year, which veganism is only 100 lives per years; the difference is apparently negligible.Gatogreensleeveshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04422843766695177998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-68109459407589222652011-03-27T22:07:29.212-04:002011-03-27T22:07:29.212-04:00I enjoyed the topic for this pocast, and I find th...I enjoyed the topic for this pocast, and I find that my opinions are quite similar to Julia's utilitarian reasons, but with very different results - I am more like the flexible Dr. Pigliucci in practise!<br /><br />As a child and younger teenager I spent my summers (before having a job) on various family farms where I helped with (no choice!) the chores like feeding and mucking out the pens. Because of this I feel I am reasonably familiar with the differences between big agribiz "factory farming" and small to medium-sized "normal" (i.e not ones that go for the "organic" label) farms, and in my opinion the animals on such farms are well treated and raised in a humane manner.<br /><br />The result of these experiences is that I buy my meat at farmers markets where I can be reasonably sure that the animals were raised in a manner which I would consider ethical, rather than meat which at a grocery store which might be from a factory farm.<br /><br />While I do not doubt Julia's diligence, I was surprised to hear her say that she has only been able to find one source for meat which meets her standards for being raised ethically. I would have thought it would have been easy to find meat at a market in NYC of a similar provenance to what I buy? (Though perhaps that is a naïve assumption as so large a city as NYC is outside my general experience. There may be practical or other considerations of which I am not aware.)<br /><br />One angle which I had hoped you would address, but did not, are the social justice issues.<br /><br />Smaller family farms simply cannot survive on the same small margins that large agribiz corporations can. Thus the meat that I buy is necessarily more expensive than what I could buy at a grocery store and is therefore out of reach for economically disadvantaged people. <br /><br />Further, a vegetarian diet requires a little more care in maintaining a proper balance as compared to an omnivorous diet and a lot of these lower-income people simply have not had the education or opportunity to develop the necessary skills. This was not something I knew until my Mom started providing volunteer child care for a program for low-income mothers. The skills they teach these women are the most basic of microwave and stove-top recipes and a simplified understanding of the the Canada Food Guide. From what I understand, the two-parent poor families are no better off in terms of meal-planning skills.<br /><br />Many out-spoken (to put it kindly) vegans do not seem to realize or understand that issue why they try to push veganism with how expensive meat is. It may be the single most expensive part of a grocery bill, but for these unfortunate people it is simply impractical (if not impossible) for them to just replace that meat with an equivalent dollar amount of fruit & vegetable products and thus have more to eat. The imbalances in their diet would increase increase the already detrimental health effects from buying the cheaper, lower quality canned and processed foods.Coryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01441788487288631828noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-91281890920181248102011-03-22T08:01:23.742-04:002011-03-22T08:01:23.742-04:00Benny, I think you wanted to post this under anoth...Benny, I think you wanted to post this under another thread, but since it's here: correct, I don't think we should *ever* engage in operations against another democracy, covert or otherwise.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-51699094305882405562011-03-21T18:05:05.970-04:002011-03-21T18:05:05.970-04:00In your reference of the other 9/11, are you argui...In your reference of the other 9/11, are you arguing that the US should never engage in covert operations either unless the situation meets the requirements? I'm not making a case for or against it but, the US did not intervene militarily in Chile.bennyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00861699243677815489noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-8640130474507117112011-03-15T12:26:45.087-04:002011-03-15T12:26:45.087-04:00Bryan, my beef with Haidt is that he claims there ...Bryan, my beef with Haidt is that he claims there is a structural bias, not just lack of diversity, in academia. I welcome more variety f ideological positions, but I think it is ridiculous to argue that conservatives are somehow left out of the academy by entrenched liberals - especially on the grounds of the extremely flimsy evidence that Haidt brings up.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-54467533952398359192011-03-15T12:12:56.278-04:002011-03-15T12:12:56.278-04:00Massimo Pigliucci,
you said:
"No, but the ar...Massimo Pigliucci,<br />you said: <br />"No, but the argument is that ethnic and gender diversity is the best a human community can do to keep ideological biases in check, on the simple ground that if we are all white males we may have a bit more trouble spotting our own ideological idiosyncrasies. It seems to me hard to argue against it, but I'm sure someone will find a way."<br /><br />Weren't you yourself arguing against it just a month ago in your conversation with Jonathan Haidt with regards to the lack of political diversity within modern acadamia?Bryan Wadehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04443034039412895862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-40466093707154839232011-03-10T17:33:58.423-05:002011-03-10T17:33:58.423-05:00Yes we are - I just do not know where you get the ...Yes we are - I just do not know where you get the idea that anybody you accuse of scientism would actually claim that science is the final arbiter of <i>all</i> things rational. My (and I understand their) point is simply that religious claims* are of the same nature as those that science is normally allowed to pronounce on, and that conversely, the same goal post moving and not presenting coherent theories is possible for all non-religious issues too.<br /><br /><i>First, how on earth can you empirically test the claim that "processes" are not directed?</i><br /><br />Yes, that is where Occam's Razor comes in. Otherwise, intelligent falling. The joke works precisely because there is no qualitative difference between that and intelligent design, or an undetectable god creating the laws of physics. You allow scientists to reject intelligent falling, you gotta allow them to reject the creator; you forbid them to reject the creator (scientism!) and they are logically forbidden to laugh at intelligent falling.<br /><br /><i>Be careful my friend. String theory says there are 11 dimensions of space-time. No empirical evidence. By your reckoning, no 11 dimensions, yes?</i><br /><br />I do not know enough about physics to comment very intelligently, but by my reckoning, science does not consist merely of a string of theoretically unrelated hypothesis tests, but also of finding the best/simplest/most predictive model to describe something. If, after taking all the observed structure of the universe into account, somebody suggests these 11 dimensions as the best model to describe it, then the empirical evidence has entered at the beginning of this very sentence, even if there was no testing.<br /><br />That being said, and again, my knowledge is really limited to Wikipedia level here, there seems to be another side to the controversy which argues that their model without those 11 dimensions is better. And as long as there is no test to differentiate between the two, it behooves me to remain agnostic simply because I lack the capability to assess which of the two is the more parsimonious one.<br /><br />I would also say that there is a qualitative difference between postulating a certain structure for something that is undoubtedly observed and postulating the existence of an entity or object that is entirely unobserved.<br /><br />*) Except those that are really moral philosophy, of course, but if you reduce religion to that, I would not call it religion any more, and neither would 99% of the religious.Alex SLhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00801894164903608204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-27634374084684714432011-03-10T12:45:08.826-05:002011-03-10T12:45:08.826-05:00What would an alter ego, providing intellectually ...What would an alter ego, providing intellectually isometric opposition, look like?Justinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17703912676685127907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-6624858164048781882011-03-10T08:30:04.114-05:002011-03-10T08:30:04.114-05:00Alex, I don't know exactly how you sucked me i...Alex, I don't know exactly how you sucked me into this discussion again. But here we go:<br /><br />> the conclusion that there is no creator is simply the flip side of the demonstration that non-directed processes suffice as an explanation of the existence of the object in question. <<br /><br />Oh no it isn't! First, how on earth can you empirically test the claim that "processes" are not directed? Second, of course the savvy theologian would simply reply that god created the laws of nature themselves, knowing exactly what that would do. Such a claim is entirely un-empirical, and hence not approachable by science. But of course it raises the (philosophical) issue of natural evil.<br /><br />> Science, to do its job in any field of research whatsoever, is forced to say that if there is no empirical evidence for something then we must tentatively conclude that this something does not exist. <<br /><br />Be careful my friend. String theory says there are 11 dimensions of space-time. No empirical evidence. By your reckoning, no 11 dimensions, yes?<br /><br />> the conclusions of applying Occam and rejecting incoherence are not based on science per se but on more general reason or philosophy. Okay, but nobody really cares what they are based on <<br /><br />Apparently you do, since you continue to acknowledging this and immediately add "but..."<br /><br />> Occam and rejection of incoherence are not tools produced by science. BUT if we want to do science, it needs a toolbox that contains these tools, or it cannot draw any conclusions at all. In that sense, it is hard not to consider them part of science, no matter where the justification comes from <<br /><br />Agreed and never denied, except that it *does* matter where the justification comes from, because it makes my point that science is not self-sufficient and is not the only and final arbiter of things rational (an attitude otherwise known as... scientism!).<br /><br />> That in itself does not in any way include even just the claim that our confidence in the usefulness and epistemic value of doing science is justified, and much less that science is the only way to generate knowledge. <<br /><br />Ah, when I read this sort of thing I'm reassured that the two of us are indeed much closer than our discussions might indicate.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-48590099407197286312011-03-09T18:10:54.186-05:002011-03-09T18:10:54.186-05:00> I really don't think I wrote that.
That ...> I really don't think I wrote that.<br /><br />That you cannot see this obvious implication is part of the problem right there - the conclusion that there is no creator is simply the flip side of the demonstration that non-directed processes suffice as an explanation of the existence of the object in question. You say the createdness of the universe is a question with zero empirical content. Science, to do its job in any field of research whatsoever, is forced to say that if there is no empirical evidence for something (in this case, the creator who would be evidenced by signs of createdness found in the universe), then we must tentatively conclude that this something does not exist.<br /><br />Also to do its job in any field whatsoever, it has to disregard incoherent claims. Once again you play the definition of science card and say that this is all well, but the conclusions of applying Occam and rejecting incoherence are not based on science per se but on more general reason or philosophy. Okay, but nobody really cares what they are based on - this is what I tried to point out with my painting example and with the "bollocks" sentence above:<br /><br />Yes, Occam and rejection of incoherence are not tools produced by science. BUT if we want to do science, it needs a toolbox that contains these tools, or it cannot draw any conclusions at all. In that sense, it is hard not to consider them part of science, no matter where the justification comes from, just like a v-belt is a crucial part of a car although it was not produced by a car. Then, once we have agreed that science may proceed with its work and use these tools (and we have to, otherwise it could not conclude anything ever), it becomes simply a question of consistency.<br /><br />That in itself does not in any way include even just the claim that our confidence in the usefulness and epistemic value of doing science is justified, and much less that science is the only way to generate knowledge. It could well be that the best way to find out things about the world is to read the vedas, or imagine them (because really one of us is the only sentient being and everything else is their dream). Science could be completely misguided. But once you assume that it is the best way to find out how things work and what there is*, it makes no sense to randomly attach the sticker "religious - science no go there" to some things.<br /><br />Obviously the Catholic would not budge and instead move goalposts (but be honest: would they suddenly concede if you do philosophy to them? Ha.). The point is being allowed to say, without getting angry accusations of scientism hurled at you: "science shows your claim to be false or ridiculously improbable. If you believe scientific conclusions re homeopathy, age of the earth and existence of unicorns, why do make an arbitrary exception for prayer? That is inconsistent."<br /><br />*) As I said, in my definition it is, and I find it hard to see how it could be otherwise. You insist at the same time that my claim philosophy does not apply to specific patterns, processes and objects in the universe would overly limit it (to pure logic) and that it it is a straw man that it would claim to be able to demonstrate the existence of a sunken city in the Atlantic. Quite, but that is the point, isn't it? The only way to demonstrate what things exist or how things work is science (including natural history and experimental engineering). If that is too wide a definition of science for you, fine. But yours is too wide a definition of philosophy for others. And if we realize that this is all just about definitions, then we could perhaps stop accusing each other of isms and naivite.Alex SLhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00801894164903608204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-10621583076824978672011-03-09T06:06:09.300-05:002011-03-09T06:06:09.300-05:00"...Religious nonsense" - that which is ..."...Religious nonsense" - that which is not sensed. To use the word nonsense is to objectify something that involves two entities (1) the combined sources of the 'religious' information (2) the receiver, who does not process the info to the point of feeling it, making it his/her/its own, and calls it claptrap, nonsense, what have you.DaveShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15840516954793215700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-26615531028388422392011-03-08T16:57:35.037-05:002011-03-08T16:57:35.037-05:00Alex,
> I imagine that astro- and particle phy...Alex,<br /><br />> I imagine that astro- and particle physicists would be surprised to hear that the origin of the universe has "zero empirical content" and is not a scientific question <<br /><br />I really don't think I wrote that.<br /><br />> Sorry to say, but it makes you sound a bit like those creationists who insists that we cannot know anything about evolution because "we weren't there when it happened". <<br /><br />Oh please, give me a bit more credit than that, yes?<br /><br />> I am once again rather confused how you can stress the totally empirical nature of the pyramid question, meaning that is why science can have an opinion, and then turn around and say it isn't science... because? <<br /><br />Because unlike you I don't see "science" as including any and all sorts of empirical claims. Archeology (pyramids) is a science, albeit of a different nature from physics, but history (largely) is not. So claims about ancient Egyptians and pyramids are at the borderline of science, but well within the scope of a combination of archeology and history.<br /><br />> a goal-post-moving god non-concept as an obvious non-hypothesis <<br /><br />You keep writing like any other god hypothesis was also not a goal-post-moving kind of entity. They all are, which is why science has little to say about them. And once again, I certainly don't intend this as either a criticism of science or even less a defense of religious nonsense.<br /><br />> a clearer concept like "god is our placeholder for the mysterious force in nature that demonstrably answers prayers for miraculous regrowth of lost limbs, but only if Catholics do the praying <<br /><br />Except of course that god works in mysterious ways, and no Catholic is going to budge a single inch after your much vaunted scientific demonstration of the lack of efficacy of prayer. And they are not moving precisely because all god "hypotheses" are constantly goal-post-moving.<br /><br />> the scientific conclusion that because there is no evidence for the inference of any creative superior intelligences in the history of the universe, there likely aren't any, just like there ain't no phlogiston <<br /><br />The phlogiston was a scientific hypothesis that could be tested, was tested, and was rejected. To even talk about evidence for an incoherent concept is, well, incoherent.<br /><br />> the right and even duty of a scientist to reject non-coherent concepts even without having first been granted a degree in philosophy <<br /><br />Again, please no straw men. They don't have to get a degree in philosophy, they just need to agree that what they are doing is a basic exercise of reason, which needs not to be over-glorified with the appellative of "science."Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-13511812401386464352011-03-08T16:01:32.234-05:002011-03-08T16:01:32.234-05:00Yes, you are right, I should drop it. If we did no...Yes, you are right, I should drop it. If we did not achieve any agreement in the previous discussions, we won't find it here. And I should certainly have chosen an example from evolutionary history, or perhaps the formation of the solar system, where nobody can tell us they did it.<br /><br />Still, although I am not one myself, I imagine that astro- and particle physicists would be surprised to hear that the origin of the universe has "zero empirical content" and is not a scientific question. Sorry to say, but it makes you sound a bit like those creationists who insists that we cannot know anything about evolution because "we weren't there when it happened".<br /><br />From the other direction, I am once again rather confused how you can stress the totally empirical nature of the pyramid question, meaning that is why science can have an opinion, and then turn around and say it isn't science... because?<br /><br />Finally, in general, please consider again the nuances between (1) a goal-post-moving god non-concept as an obvious non-hypothesis, (2) a clearer concept like "god is our placeholder for the mysterious force in nature that demonstrably answers prayers for miraculous regrowth of lost limbs, but only if Catholics do the praying (p<0.00001, see also the following 215 references that have found the same)", (3) the scientific conclusion that because there is no evidence for the inference of any creative superior intelligences in the history of the universe, there likely aren't any, just like there ain't no phlogiston, and (4) the right and even duty of a scientist to reject non-coherent concepts even without having first been granted a degree in philosophy.Alex SLhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00801894164903608204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-9831822045210395512011-03-08T09:01:34.868-05:002011-03-08T09:01:34.868-05:00Alex, only you could go from a post on values in s...Alex, only you could go from a post on values in science to yet another discussion about god. Okay, I'll bite:<br /><br />> If you say, as you seem to do, that a scientist cannot say this because that would be using Occam and Occam is philosophy, you must logically forbid a scientist to conclude that the ancient Egyptians probably built the pyramids <<br /><br />You must be joking. Aside from the fact that my main objection to the god thing is that "god" is a barely coherent concept that simply does not qualify as a hypothesis in any meaningful sense of the term, the first situation you are referring to has zero empirical content (which is why it ain't science), while the second one does. We have plenty of historical evidence that the Egyptians built the pyramids (they told us so, their neighbors left documents about it, there are artifacts showing them in the process of doing so).<br /><br />Oh, and of course for me history ain't science either...Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-11815753205157040102011-03-07T22:29:30.706-05:002011-03-07T22:29:30.706-05:00Whats that? The topic has shifted to AI, you say? ...Whats that? The topic has shifted to AI, you say? How did that happen? What a coincidence, I just happen to have some thoughts on this very topic that could use some insight.<br /><br />My unsettled interest, I think, seems to boil down to (science fiction aside) what I have come to discover is properly called the logic of action and the so-called frame problem. However, I am far from well-versed in these areas, so Ill just describe the issues tumbling around my head (science fiction front and center), and someone else can tell me why they aren't really issues worth thinking about.<br /><br />In the Chalmers discussion of the singularity (before you start throwing fruit, Im only using it as a setup), he was asked about what may be determinate in one outcome of the singularity over the other. The singularity is not what interests me here (any more), rather he seemed to contend that it is very important that we, as pre-singularity programmers, instill a type of value system into these exceedingly complex computer systems. That we could somehow, through subtle tendencies in programming protocols or something like that, influence the way software "behaves" in a way that is desirable to humans, is... well, it may be science fiction, but it raises a lot of questions, and is utterly fascinating to me.<br /><br />There is an issue here to start. The frame problem. In rudimentary terms, the difficulty in setting an AI to do common-sense tasks (like, I would think, making value judgments on-the-fly) because you would seemingly have to define all the effects and, more problematically, all the non-effects of a particular action. That is, it seems one could always think of another (pre)condition that should be incorporated so that the AI would always be able to follow the correct procedure. Not to mention, having the AI sort out what is relevant for the particular situation. I recognize there are suggested solutions to this, and if I understood them, they may well solve the problems I think I have, but I dont so I move on. <br /><br />I kind of like thinking however, about the decidedly less scientific (at best superfluous, at worst a waste of time aside from science fiction fans) question of what, assuming we could figure out how to do so and the outcome was meaningful, values would we want to ascribe to the body of AI? Consequentialist? Its leveled against consequentialist ethics that it is too demanding of the person, that one would never be able to discern what some tangential consequences might be. Is this where a super smart computer steps in? Or would we the find that the computers decided to cut the global population to 1 billion because that will have greater net effects over the centuries, or some such undesirable scenario? Kantian? would we want computers going around acting according to the maxim by which they would will universal? In that case should we make the computers think theyre humans so they share our interests? How might they account for pain and suffering if they themselves have no experience of it?<br /><br />And how, even if we could come up with a way to imbue the right values in their programming, could we be sure the programs always work how they're supposed to? Given the enormous amount of nefarious computer programs (programmers) even today (the executive divisions of the US are subject to cyber attack 10000 times a minute or something outrageous like that) how can we ensure our amicable machines would stay that way or be able to overpower alternate (evil) software proliferation? <br /><br />Given the feeble ground on which a singularity-type situation, in which computers become more intelligent than humans, and are making value decisions, rests, these questions dont have much meaning, and I realize posting such questions to a forum exploring the borderlands of reason and nonsense probably puts me squarely in the nonsense camp. But ill be damned if it doesnt tickle my nonsensical fancy. Maybe I should just go read a good science fiction book and move on.cheesecritichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11831109630514423428noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-88256976387023863142011-03-07T20:29:40.431-05:002011-03-07T20:29:40.431-05:00No, my approach simply would lead to the realizati...<i>No, my approach simply would lead to the realization that science is not self-sufficient (with which I'm sure you agree). Nothing is, not even logic. Ian, meditate about that for a moment.</i><br /><br />I still do not think you have quite realized what problems a few of us have with your stance. Granted that science is not self-sufficient, what is again your argument against a sentence like the following?<br /><br />"Because there is no evidence for the existence of a creator god, even after we have looked very, very carefully, we should provisionally, as always in science, conclude that it probably does not exist"<br /><br />If you say, as you seem to do, that a scientist cannot say this because that would be using Occam and Occam is philosophy, you must logically forbid a scientist to conclude that the ancient Egyptians probably built the pyramids, as it could just as well have been undetectable aliens. Their undetectability is fully equivalent to a creator god that has created the universe to look like it doesn't exist. If, however, you say that the scientist is okay with the pyramids but not with the god, because... well, because. See, this is where it breaks down: special pleading. In principle, the problem would still be there even if it could be demonstrated decisively that science is all bollocks, because it has nothing to do with self-sufficiency or scientism, but all with consistency.Alex SLhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00801894164903608204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-11682780675073901722011-03-07T08:30:57.838-05:002011-03-07T08:30:57.838-05:00Alex, I keep thinking that we are a hell of a lot ...Alex, I keep thinking that we are a hell of a lot closer than this discussion might induce people to think. Nonetheless:<br /><br />> I have twice previously argued against a truly scientistic commentor on your blog by insisting that while science applies (in some way) to everything that physically exists, it cannot necessarily say everything that we might want to say about something. <<br /><br />Correct, but I simply don't think that there is much (or at all) useful science that one can do about all sorts of physical things, even though surely everything physical comes under the purview of science.<br /><br />> Somebody called Ugh the Caveman or similar, when he decided to retrace his steps of the day to search for his missing stone axe instead of non-parsimoniously assuming that it had, say, grown wings and flown away. <<br /><br />See, this is were I do find that you tend to veer toward Coyne-style ridiculousness. Of course science is a systematized and much more sophisticated version of certain human abilities. But to say that Caveman was doing science because he was unconsciously applying Occam's razor (incidentally, how do you know this, exactly?) is preposterous. And as I mentioned before, by that definition everything becomes philosophy because whenever we think we philosophize.<br /><br />> because your approach, if consistently applied, makes science impossible, and if restricted to religious questions only amounts to special pleading. <<br /><br />No, my approach simply would lead to the realization that science is not self-sufficient (with which I'm sure you agree). Nothing is, not even logic. Ian, meditate about that for a moment.<br /><br />> by definition, science is the only approach that works to understand the specific world around us <<br /><br />By definition? Is this a case of a priori knowledge? Surely you mean "it empirically turned out to be the case that..."<br /><br />> And then you turn around and make another point by insisting that something is science that was done by somebody who, last I looked, died approximately 1120 years before Occam was born. <<br /><br />Fair point, I wrote that in a hurry. I tend to take a historical view of science: its roots go back to Aristotle and similar, but a lot of it was proto-science, with science as we understand it today beginning with the (properly name) scientific revolution of the 17th century, and finally really solidifying as a professional systematized enterprise between the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-59466477181728499602011-03-07T00:56:54.974-05:002011-03-07T00:56:54.974-05:00The Savvy Timesaver published a post today called,...The Savvy Timesaver published a post today called, "Just Like Riding a Bike". It gives a perspective, involving the concept of artificial intelligence, designed to change a person's paradigm in such a way that enables them to get more out of life.<br /><br />Since the topic has shifted to AI, I figured it might be of interest. <br /><br />When taken out of context, it creates an interesting perspective for the creationist side of the evolution debate (Not that the topic needs debating, I would hate to find myself on the creationist side against Professor Pigliucci, to whom I regard as an expert on the topic. The fact is I've been contemplating a post that would illustrate the contradiction between the main-stream Christian stance on abortion and their anti-evolutionism). <br /><br />Here is the, "out of context" portion of the post:<br /><br /> > Today, we have the ability to make elaborate and entertaining video games. Characters come to life and live out a fantasy with graphics and imagery that is truly breathtaking. Meanwhile, scientists diligently work on the development of artificial intelligence. It is obvious that one day we will possess the programming knowledge to create a self learning computer as capable as our brain. <br /><br /> Consider what happens when we insert an artificially intelligent character into a video game world. The character is instantly self aware and being programmed with a backstory, remembers his childhood, knows where he lives, who his friends are, etc. As he looks around his world, he notices rock formations and determines they would have taken millions of years to naturally form. Therefore he assumes that his world is millions of years old. In reality his world is only a few minutes old. It all sprang into existence moments ago at the push of a button. He devises a lens and stares up at the sky, not perceiving an end to the cosmos, he assumes his universe is infinite. In reality, his universe is not infinite, but rather a manifestation of a finite amount of programming code, being processed by a finite amount of circuit board. When he reasons his health and life expectancy, he determines that he has as many as 60 years left to live. The fact is that he does not have 60+ years. He has only the time allotted for the video game scenario he is assigned to complete. As soon as it is over, the score will be tallied and he along with his entire world will flash out of existence. Though he can observe the various physical properties of his world, such as gravity, and he can conduct experiments to confirm them and draw various conclusions based on those experiments; there isn't a single experiment he can conduct that would enable him to detect the box he is contained in. He would never know about the TV or the person watching him through it.< End of "out of context" quoted portion of the Savvy Timesaver's, "Just Like Riding a Bike" post.Justinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17703912676685127907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-76733171301892032032011-03-06T22:50:22.487-05:002011-03-06T22:50:22.487-05:00"What I am not happy with is you considering ..."What I am not happy with is you considering it scientism for a scientist to conclude that things can be assumed not to exist if there is zero evidence for their existence. Not because I want all philosophy departments to be closed and turned into biology labs or some such nonsense, but because your approach, if consistently applied, makes science impossible ..." - Alex SL<br /><br />I think you've gotten this exactly backward. I can understand science rejecting the claim that something exists when there is no evidence, but claiming that something is impossible because there is no evidence? Science would be impossible if it were to adopted this approach. Toward what end would anyone gather evidence if everything without evidence is already known to be impossible?Just Some Guyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11306519568976890754noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-84174178735575348282011-03-06T22:07:20.180-05:002011-03-06T22:07:20.180-05:00>On the other hand, I would actually be fairly ...>On the other hand, I would actually be fairly happy with a taxonomy that considers science as a sub-discipline of philosophy. What I am not happy with is you considering it scientism for a scientist to conclude that things can be assumed not to exist if there is zero evidence for their existence. Not because I want all philosophy departments to be closed and turned into biology labs or some such nonsense, but because your approach, if consistently applied, makes science impossible, and if restricted to religious questions only amounts to special pleading.<br /><br />Beautifully put. Massimo, please meditate on this paragraph until you attain enlightenment.ianpollockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15579140807988796286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-8124298124264631482011-03-06T21:47:54.617-05:002011-03-06T21:47:54.617-05:00One question re artificial intelligence I haven...One question re artificial intelligence I haven't seen addressed yet concerns the proposal that intelligence in biological organisms evolved with the aid of cultural learning mechanisms. See the "Culture evolves" discussion here: http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/366/1567.toc<br />Suggesting that the artificial brains might need to experience their environments as a group to learn how to adaptively reprogram themselves. <br />How likely is that to happen unless Kurzwell and the like have considered how to wean them from their initial reliance on the teachings of human culture, where competitive strategies are the norm, and to program them to trust their fellow robots to help them evolve as a group of non-competitors? Where presumably they will be too smart to keep any secrets from each other.<br />Too smart to see the value of learning to outsmart each other that evolution to date seems to have relied on.Baron Phttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04138430918331887648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-49406455053700996872011-03-06T20:12:01.539-05:002011-03-06T20:12:01.539-05:00Oh, Massimo, one thing: I really appreciate the at...Oh, Massimo, one thing: I really appreciate the attribution below the RS logo, but there's no need to continue using it, especially since I am no longer doing any web design (I'll probably kill that site soon). Feel free to use the logo unattributed. :)ianpollockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15579140807988796286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-61963564010934573342011-03-06T18:39:57.334-05:002011-03-06T18:39:57.334-05:00Seriously? So, again, you are doing science when y...<i>Seriously? So, again, you are doing science when you are making your breakfast? And what does science tell us about the aesthetic value of a Picasso? Or is that not part of the universe?</i><br /><br />Well, science as I understand it could probably help me to find more time-efficient ways to make my breakfast, or inform me about the most healthy food I could chose. Aesthetic values, in the sense that they are part of the universe, are indeed something that is partly (!) subject to neurology and suchlike. We could also do a poll asking people whether they like a Picasso better than a da Vinci, and I would surely consider that activity scientific. You will know, however, that I have twice previously argued against a truly scientistic commentor on your blog by insisting that while science applies (in some way) to everything that physically exists, it cannot necessarily say everything that we might want to say about something - I tend to use scholarly interpretation of Shakespeare's dramas as the counterexample.<br /><br /><i>As Ian pointed out, you have much too narrow an understanding of philosophy, it ain't just logic.</i><br /><br />And science isn't just a lab experiment.<br /><br />Philosphy cannot tell us how the sun generates light or if there is a sunken city on the floor of the Atlantic ocean. - <i>And it doesn't pretend to. Do I smell strawman, again?</i><br /><br />Please extend logically to other items whose existence is controversial.Alex SLhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00801894164903608204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-17804082487202727572011-03-06T18:39:45.311-05:002011-03-06T18:39:45.311-05:00Occam's razor was proposed by, uhm, Occam. Who...<i>Occam's razor was proposed by, uhm, Occam. Who was a philosopher active well before there was anything like science.</i><br /><br />Yes, he formally, academically proposed it. But who used it first? Somebody called Ugh the Caveman or similar, when he decided to retrace his steps of the day to search for his missing stone axe instead of non-parsimoniously assuming that it had, say, grown wings and flown away.<br /><br /><i>But I think it is important for scientists to agree (and not feel defensive) about the fact that science - understood as empirically based hypothesis testing - is not the beginning and end of all knowledge and wisdom. And I know you agree with that.</i><br /><br />Yup. And while I have not spoken with any of them personally, I have read enough of their books and blogs to know that all your usual suspects would also agree with that.<br /><br /><i>If you want to play that game, we can do it the other way around and declare that any activity that is based on thinking is, by definition, philosophy. So science is philosophy, plumbing is philosophy, and when you decide what you are going to have for breakfast is philosophy. There. See how silly it is?</i><br /><br />I am rather confused about what you are aiming at here. I have just pointed out how silly it is myself.<br /><br />On the other hand, I would actually be fairly happy with a taxonomy that considers science as a sub-discipline of philosophy. What I am not happy with is you considering it scientism for a scientist to conclude that things can be assumed not to exist if there is zero evidence for their existence. Not because I want all philosophy departments to be closed and turned into biology labs or some such nonsense, but because your approach, if consistently applied, makes science impossible, and if restricted to religious questions only amounts to special pleading.<br /><br />And I am not saying that Coyne's plumbing or Myer's finding an engine part on his stroll is already science as we do it in academia - but it is a proto-science in the sense that science is nothing but a carefully formalized extension of the same principle that made Ugh formulate hypotheses of varying prior likelihood about what could have happened to his axe and then test them against evidence (of the "does my rival Oglok look more guilty or pleased than normal?" type, for example). The point being that science grew naturally out of everyday approaches we tried out to understand the world around us. Some did not work (e.g., asking oracles), but all those that did made it into the toolbox of science. Thus, by definition, science is the only approach that works to understand the specific world around us - because the moment anything is discovered that works, it is simply added to science.<br /><br /><i>Seriously? So you get to define science in whatever convenient time-frame limited fashion happens to suit your model of it? Last I checked, people think of Ptolemaic astronomy as astronomy, not astrology.</i><br /><br />Once again I must express a great deal of confusion. It is <i>me</i> who charges <i>you</i> with defining science in whatever way happens to suit your current stance in the discussion. When you want to show that science is a very restricted form of activity or that Occam invented parsimony, you write, and I cite literally, that he did it "well before there was anything like science". And then you turn around and make another point by insisting that something is science that was done by somebody who, last I looked, died approximately 1120 years before Occam was born. Do you not see any self-contradiction here? Is it me, with my consistently wide definition of science, who is twisting things?Alex SLhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00801894164903608204noreply@blogger.com