The only fact there is is that
there's no such thing as a fact.
( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Tue 17 Jan 2012, 15:50, 29 replies)

Bollocks.
Mathematical theorems are indisputable facts. That's why the only Bsc you can get in The States is in maths. All the other sciences are classed as arts.
( The Awful Puppy Bakery is still bored, Tue 17 Jan 2012, 16:25, closed)

They require you to believe that they exist, you exist, and that they are true.
All "knowledge" is merely very strong belief.
( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Tue 17 Jan 2012, 16:27, closed)

I think, therefore I am.
I realise that doesn't necessarily mean my physical self, or indeed any type of physical reality exist, but I can be sure my thoughts exist without having to resort to any type of model dependant reality, and I don't need reality to deal with maths, just thoughts.
( The Awful Puppy Bakery is still bored, Tue 17 Jan 2012, 16:53, closed)

And maths doesn't have to be knowledge.
In a universe with no life 1+1 would equal 2. Outside of spacetime 1+1 would equal 2. It's a fact.
( The Awful Puppy Bakery is still bored, Tue 17 Jan 2012, 16:57, closed)

Your thoughts only exist
because that's how I've imagined you.
( monster munch person, man, woman... camera... TV?, Tue 17 Jan 2012, 18:13, closed)

Relativist bollocks
that depends on wilfully confusing a 'fact' with 'knowledge of a fact'. There are facts about the universe that would be true even if humans had never existed, although there would be no knowledge of those facts.

Anyone who fancies countering this argument with some Richard Rorty style constructivism should bring it on. But I swear, I'll beat you down with my mighty scientific realism stick, and it won't be pretty.
(leviticus no longer likes the cut of your gib on, Tue 17 Jan 2012, 16:58, closed)

I'm giving your response a click
Because, like you, I hate relativist shite too. And Rorty can go fuck himself.
(Dildo Bugger destroyed a ring on, Tue 17 Jan 2012, 17:11, closed)

Don't get me wrong, I'm with you on this..but.
Ha, there's always a but isn't there. Isn't modern physics based on scientifc realism, yet still relies on model dependant theories, and if I'm not mistaken holds a consensus that the universe is a top down entity. In other words, it's the way it is because it's been observed to be that way. I also thought Feynman had shown that given enough time the probabilities could all add up to have some very unexpected results, like large objects jumping from one place to another. I'm not sure what my point is here. I'm a bit out of my depth. My education finished twenty years ago after my GCSE's.
( The Awful Puppy Bakery is still bored, Tue 17 Jan 2012, 17:47, closed)

OK
first, scientific realism isn't the same as its well intentioned but ultimately over-zealous predecessor, logical positivism. LP was pretty much extremist empiricism. It said that anything not directly observed or measured was 'meaningless' and inadmissible as either argument or justification for belief.

Scientific realism doesn't fall into that trap. It is a philosophical position that says that scientific findings, as long as they confirm to the most rigorous standards of science, are admissible as justified beliefs, and that everything else is a mix of bunkum and arbitrary value judgements.

I can't recommend it enough, and it's worth learning about just so you can shoot down philosophy wankers, either the 'professional' or 'stoned amateur' variety.

Second, the idea "[the universe is] the way it is because it's been observed to be that way" is one of my personal pet hates.
As Feynman would have emphasised, we don't understand quantum physics, we only have mathematical tools to describe it.

The (now common) idea that human beings are collapsing possibility-waves into reality by the act of observation is more a result of academics from the humanities muddying the waters than anything else (particularly philosophers with certain pseudo-scientific or postmodern, constructivist bents). That said, I think Max Planck did actually believe this, or at least he can be quoted to seem that way.
Usually, it's the conclusion of a non-expert trying to make sense of things like Schrodinger's cat and Heisenberg's uncertainty principle (the former was a thought experiment designed to discredit QP, the latter turns out to be more far more nuanced than Heisenberg thought). As I understand it, an 'observer', the kind needed to collapse a the probability wave of a photon into a photon particle, can be any interacting bit of matter, and does not need to be a person, let alone a conscious mind.

Frankly, I'm totally out of my depth in any kind of physics, let alone quantum physics, and am relying almost entirely on popular science books. But personally, I think it is absurd and narcissistic to think that human beings are so important that we are somehow creating a reality that would not exist without us to observe it.

You only need to look at the amazing unlikeliness of our evolution, to realise that a fact like 'hydrogen atoms have a single electron', would be true whether or not humans were ever around to give names to atoms, electron or hydrogen.
(leviticus no longer likes the cut of your gib on, Wed 18 Jan 2012, 10:58, closed)

So it's a philosophical position, based on beliefs.
Hmm.

Seems a bit wishy-washy to me.
( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Wed 18 Jan 2012, 11:41, closed)

Ha!
That's some classy trolling.

You should get yourself enrolled on a philosophy course. You'd either give your professors brain hernias or they'll be eating out of your hand. Denial of reality bordering on solipsism is still very 'in' right now.
(leviticus no longer likes the cut of your gib on, Wed 18 Jan 2012, 11:51, closed)

That wouldn't be mockery in lieu of a point, would it?
Only, I'm still waiting for this "mighty beat down", which I understand won't be pretty.
( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Wed 18 Jan 2012, 12:00, closed)

Actually it was a genuine compliment
'cos I thought you were joking.

If you're not, I actually think mockery would be the only suitable response. Actually, if there are no objective facts, it doesn't matter what I say. By your logic, even as you read these words, their meaning, or whether they actually even exist, is merely an unproveable hypothesis.
(leviticus no longer likes the cut of your gib on, Wed 18 Jan 2012, 13:09, closed)

Indeed.
Yes - everything IS an unprovable hypothesis.

Of course, it's not very practical to view the world in such a way, but it's true nonetheless - the paradox of existence.

As you're well aware, no doubt, mockery is the the best way to indicate you have nothing more to offer in a debate.
( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Wed 18 Jan 2012, 13:16, closed)

I guess you're hung up on the idea of 'proof'
But, you know - David Hume, Karl Popper - it's not like your the first person to see that proof is a problematic idea.

A good way through is to flip the problem round the other way and try to explain the coherence of the world you percieve. There are really no such thing as paradoxes in the universe (not in the way we usually use the term). All such 'philosophical' paradoxes are really just word games, and yours centres around particular hard-and-fast definitions of 'proof', 'truth' and 'fact'.

Also, I was not aware that mockery indicates you have nothing more to offer in a debate. Someone should tell those satirists, they must be feeling very foolish.

I still think you're trolling for the long game, you just don't seem like the sort of crusty hippy I usually have this argument with. But this is literally my favourite thing to argue about.
(leviticus no longer likes the cut of your gib on, Wed 18 Jan 2012, 13:52, closed)

Well - 10/10 for being patronising, but
0/10 for progress, making any salient or relavent, or, indeed, counter points.

All debate, however - scientologic and philisolophical - is just semantic - agreed.

Well done on reading a book with long words, though - you'll be telling me the more exams you pass the more clever it makes you, next.
( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Wed 18 Jan 2012, 14:29, closed)

:( I guess you weren't trolling
Still, I don't know what L Ron Hubbard has to do with all this.
(leviticus no longer likes the cut of your gib on, Wed 18 Jan 2012, 14:38, closed)

He's the one who married that peasant woman.
But that aside - I'm yet to see this "mighty beat down using your scientific realism stick".
( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Wed 18 Jan 2012, 14:40, closed)

Meh.
This was a lot more fun when I suspected you were kidding. Now I realise I've ended up bickering about the nature of truth on a comedy website, my heart's not really in it anymore.

Besides, as you've pointed out, mutual confirmation bias means neither of us will ever concede anyway.

If you're interested, I'd recommend Stathis Psilios' book on Scientific Realism. While some of his own ideas are a bit of a stretch, it's a totally non-masturbatory, very fair minded, and a good overview of the various arguments in the philosophy of science.

Even if you're not interested, you should definitely get a copy of Paul Boghossian's Fear of Knowledge: Against Relativism and Constructivism. It is 100 pages of pure gold, and the best demolition of an argument I have ever seen.
(leviticus no longer likes the cut of your gib on, Wed 18 Jan 2012, 15:16, closed)

I mean,
phwoar, I'll show you my mighty stick if you show me yours. Fnarr.
(leviticus no longer likes the cut of your gib on, Wed 18 Jan 2012, 15:19, closed)

"There are facts about the universe that would be true even if humans had never existed"
Yes - that's a mighty impressive claim, considering it's utterly unprovable.

But I'd be interested in a straight-forward, non-masturbatory guide to "scientific realism".

Because, y'know, it would require me to believe it's correct, and that it existed. And, indeed, that I exist.

Butterflies dreaming they're men, and all that.
( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Tue 17 Jan 2012, 19:26, closed)

believe it or not, but no-one gives two shits what you believe.

(benito vaselini no not that one, Tue 17 Jan 2012, 21:53, closed)

Nor anyone anyone else, unless it reaffirms their own belief or threatens them.

( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Wed 18 Jan 2012, 8:47, closed)

You must be great fun at pub quizzes

(leviticus no longer likes the cut of your gib on, Wed 18 Jan 2012, 11:44, closed)

Oh I'm starting to spot a trend now.

( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Wed 18 Jan 2012, 12:00, closed)

Or, you could take the view that your definition of "fact" is pointless.
It is a fact that 1+1=2 (in decimal, no rounding etc.).
If you're going to say that isn't a fact because nothing can be proven, because everything may not exist, or similar, then you've devalued the word "fact" until it is impossible to use and pointless to have.
Let's now devalue "tree", "car", road" and "baby Jesus" and continue on until our language disappears.
(Me, I'm not... in any way intoxicated, Tue 17 Jan 2012, 20:40, closed)

Precisely my point.
Everything IS meaningless. Oh sure you can claim that your little baby daughter means the world to you, but one day she'll be dust just as you, me, everything will be.

The rest is just killing time by arguing over whether it's green, blue or turquoise.
( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Tue 17 Jan 2012, 20:46, closed)

Jeez,
you sure messed with their heads.
Turquoise is a colour. No it's a stone.
(the other guy not the one that gave you coochie warts, Wed 18 Jan 2012, 1:02, closed)

And a common type of tortoise.

( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob, Wed 18 Jan 2012, 8:57, closed)