tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post3633689300387301565..comments2024-03-04T15:09:00.479-08:00Comments on The Scientific Worldview: Critique of TSW Part 13a: Interconnection/ConsupponibilityGlenn Borchardthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09394474754821945146noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post-81053960140856981952014-05-26T17:00:32.236-07:002014-05-26T17:00:32.236-07:00Comment 20140526
GB: "... To have an object...Comment 20140526<br /> <br />GB: "... To have an object transmitting matter and motion between two objects, there also must be "space," otherwise the connection would be solid matter ... which would never work." <br /><br />BW: I'm pleased that you agree with my point, which seems in conflict with your prior assertion that there can be no empty space.<br /><br />[GB: I am a bit disappointed, Bill. By now you should be getting it. Solid matter and space are idealizations; they don’t exist. That is why I put quotes around “space.” There is no space in the universe that is perfectly empty. Space always contains matter and matter always contains space. What we call space is an area in which the contained matter is too feeble to prevent entry by more dense, larger, faster microcosms.] <br /><br />GB: "... For practical reasons, of course, we can only discover a finite number of causes for any effect. At that point, we have a philosophical choice: either there are more causes or there are not. Those who assume infinity say yes; those who assume finity say no."<br /><br />[GB: You are correct that scientists only report on the most significant variables. It is impossible to include all of them, for they are infinite. That is why there always is a plus or minus and you never get exactly the same result two times in a row. You can claim, as did Galileo and the classical mechanists, that there were a finite number of causes, but you would be wrong. Such hubris is not necessary and is not supported by the facts (the plus or minus). Are any of the undiscovered variables significant? Probably not, but there is no reason other than naivety or indeterminism to “reject the philosophical proposition that "infinity" requires that there be other causes for any specific effect.”<br /><br />GB: "... The parishioner considers the holy book and the claims of relatives and friends to be "objective evidence." <br /><br />BW: But, those beliefs clearly aren't objective, they are matters of blind faith; they are merely assumptions, without evidence or logic. Hell, most of those beliefs aren't even consupponible!<br /><br />[GB: Careful now Bill, I tend to agree, but I do not think that the distinction between objective and nonobjective evidence is that simple. Plenty of religious folks believe that they are being just as objective as you are when you express “blind faith” in a finite particle. We only can get our objectivity through our five senses, which sometimes fail us. The schizophrenic who “talks to god” may report that as an objective experience—maybe start yet another religion. If objectivity was so easy, we would never have disagreements, at least in science. Big Bangers see the cosmic redshift as evidence for universal expansion, while others see it as evidence for tired light. Climate scientists consider carbon dioxide to be a cause, while geologists consider it to be an effect. Data that support a particular paradigm are solid, objective, and worthy of publication, while data that contradict a particular paradigm are suspect, nonobjective, and subject to instant dismissal. <br /><br />My main point is that what we happen to choose as “objective evidence” from among the infinite number of microcosms available to us, is highly dependent on our initial assumptions. People tend to choose the evidence that fits their story; they tend to ignore the evidence that does not. They brag about the times they won at Vegas and forget about the times they lost. They remember the times prayer worked and forget about the times it did not. Some even think that there is objective evidence for microcosmic finity.]Glenn Borchardthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09394474754821945146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post-75076072906713650142014-05-26T15:03:46.300-07:002014-05-26T15:03:46.300-07:00GB: "... To have an object transmitting matte...<i>GB: "... To have an object transmitting matter and motion between two objects, there also must be "space," otherwise the connection would be solid matter ... which would never work." </i><br /><br />I'm pleased that you agree with my point, which seems in conflict with your prior assertion that there can be no empty space.<br /><br /><i>GB: "... For practical reasons, of course, we can only discover a finite number of causes for any effect. At that point, we have a philosophical choice: either there are more causes or there are not. Those who assume infinity say yes; those who assume finity say no."</i><br /><br />A good scientist varies all the variables to discover whether they influence the particular effect being studied. If they don't modify the effect, then they are excluded from the causes.<br /><br />For example, Galileo considered dozens of variations that might affect the periodicity of a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pendulum#1602:_Galileo.27s_research" rel="nofollow">pendulum</a>, discarding all of them by testing their effects.<br />Granted, he only considered comprehensible and testable causes, but he didn't have to test every possible substance and an infinite variety of variations in mass, to conclude that those variables did not modify the periodicity. In essence, he accepted that there was an infinite variability of composition and mass, but concluded that there were a finite number of causes affecting periodicity.<br /><br /><br />So, I reject the philosophical proposition that "infinity" requires that there be other causes for any specific effect.<br /><br /><i>GB: "... you do not have to accept any of the Ten Assumptions of Science, but now I think it is time for you to accept the logic of their consupponibility."</i><br /><br />Re-read my argument: I only doubt 1/20th of your assumptions. I also agree that they are consupponible, as you've defined them. My only point was that consupponibility is merely proof that they are not logically contradictory, not proof that any of the assumptions are true in reality: that requires evidence.<br /><br /><i>GB: "... The parishioner considers the holy book and the claims of relatives and friends to be "objective evidence." </i><br /><br />But, those beliefs clearly aren't objective, they are matters of blind faith; they are merely assumptions, without evidence or logic. Hell, most of those beliefs aren't even consupponible!<br /><br /><i>GB: "... It is time for you to man up: Logically, you must agree that, if the universe is infinitely subdividable, the number of causes for even one effect is infinite, and if that is the case, then it is impossible to know everything about even one thing."</i><br /><br />Actually, I agree with that proposition, which includes a big "IF", which I don't think is necessarily true: microcosmic infinity (the 1/20th). Of course, I'll have to justify a claim of microcosmic finity, but that's a topic for my own treatise.Westmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02865166433794584552noreply@blogger.com