How do you decide if something is factual?

[Kylie]

I've followed your discussion with quatona with interest. I find myself quite closely aligned with quatona's thinking, as far as I can tell.

In response to your question here, I do rely on my conclusions, but I am aware that they may be totally wrong. One has to work with something and so those axioms, methdologies, perspectives that have generally worked for me in the past I continue to use, perhaps making the occassional small modification.

So, I absolutely rely on my conclusions, but I simultaneously accept that they could be seriously flawed. Do I care that this it the case? Of course I do, but I also care that I can no longer run 10k in 40 minutes, or climb a 17,000' peak. However, if you can't alter the situation you should move on.

I agree that we should always be open to the idea that our conclusions - whatever they are - could be flawed.

So isn't it a good idea to constantly put them to the test?

 

[Kylie]

ah, so you have the correct basis to then begin to search for what you don't know, knowing that if it is real, it will pan out, even before you see it. Like searching for gold nuggets, before you find any. Like that. Proof is in the outcome. Before you know the outcome, you on 'faith' that something may be there, even that there is a something, and it's somewhere, even if you don't know where yet. You try though you haven't found it and don't see it yet.

How?

He said --

7 “Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. 8 For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened.

9 “Which of you, if your son asks for bread, will give him a stone? 10 Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? 11 If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him! 12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets."

Put in more scientific terms, to find some things you'd often have to seek. "Sprites" are a good example. Some claimed this fantastical sounding thing of lighting going vertically upwards from the tops of the highest thunderstorm up into....what? up into space? Fantastical sounding. When scientists decided to try to find it at first they failed. They tried and failed. Falsified?.....well, if they were too impatient and not trying hard enough, then sure, falsified. But, today, you can read the wiki on sprites if you like, because they kept on seeking what sounded fantastical, and they could not find right off the bat.

Now that I've found, having the evidence so repeatedly, it would be tantamount to denying that the sun isn't there such as during a cloudy day for me to deny at this point that the Something is very real. It turns out the person Who said "Love your neighbor as yourself" knew what He was talking about.

Yeah, but it was SCIENCE that found the sprites, wasn't it? Not religion.

If there is something in the universe, science is the only tool that can actually detect it.

I honestly don't see the point of quoting those Bible verses.

 

[Ophiolite]

I agree that we should always be open to the idea that our conclusions - whatever they are - could be flawed.

So isn't it a good idea to constantly put them to the test?

Your question is more subtle than it appears, so I have to answer it in two, possibly contradictory, ways.

Reply 1
Anyone with an inclination towards scientific thinking is likely to be revisiting their conclusions in the light of new evidence or the reevaluation of old. However, it is not the conclusions that are in serious question it is the axioms, methodologies and perspectives on which they are based. Therefore, in the words of a Financial Controller I knew, seeking to avoid a problematic probe, "That's not the question you asked".

Reply 2
It may be a desirable idea to put our conclusions to the test, but it is likely not a good idea on account of the impractability. This is true in two different ways:

• There is insufficient time (and often insufficient money)to constantly test our conclusions. For this reason I do not employ a food taster to guard against the possibility that my wife really does want to kill me.
• Some conclusions have no obvious testing procedure, a point emphasised by quatona in his response to me. For example, how do I test the possibility that all was created three weeks ago with embedded memories?

Reply 3 (The Bonus Answer)
Following the election of Trump to the Presidency of the United States of America and his subsequent behaviour I have begun to suspect someone has been playing an elaborate joke on me that was almost seven decades in the making.
Really?
That's my point. I don't know.

 

[quatona]

Do you agree that it's generally best to have as few assumptions as possible?

Generally? No.
"Best" for what?

And is this random?

No, I don´t think it´s random. It has its causes, even though I may not be fully aware of them.

What is it about the issue that determines how much it bothers you?

What specifically do you want to know about these issues? I am not sure I have full insights into these inner processes. I guess a lot has to do with emotions and intuitions.
However, one important factor seems to be: Inhowmuch does/would it affect my life?

Do you ever take something that you think works and try to see if it doesn't work?

Tonight I am going to have a concert with my band. Before the gig I will check the equipment, even though I am pretty sure it´s ok. Sadly this check won´t guarantee that it won´t fail during the gig, either.
So, IOW, every time I use something, I am nolens volens also check if it works.
Is that the sort of example you were asking for?

When I say things like "the truth of the universe", I am talking about the fundamental laws which govern the way the universe works. Things like quantum mechanics. The process with which we figured out quantum mechanics is the same sort of thing which we used to figure out temperature - following the scientific method by making observations about the universe, forming a hypothesis, then attempting to support or disprove that hypothesis.

Ok.
Metaphysical questions, however, tend to go beyond that. They do not only ask about the processes within the universe, they ask about the framework within which the universe exists.

 

[Kylie]

Reply 1
Anyone with an inclination towards scientific thinking is likely to be revisiting their conclusions in the light of new evidence or the reevaluation of old. However, it is not the conclusions that are in serious question it is the axioms, methodologies and perspectives on which they are based. Therefore, in the words of a Financial Controller I knew, seeking to avoid a problematic probe, "That's not the question you asked".

Quite true, we need to base our worldview on the right perspectives.

But if our worldview is based on the WRONG axioms, wouldn't that tend to show itself in conclusions that don't match up with what we see in reality?

An example occurs to me; when Newton formulated his equations on gravity, he based them on the assumption that gravity was instantaneous. However, this lead to results inconsistent with reality, and it was only when Einstein came up with relativity which was based on the assumption that gravity effects propagated at the speed of light that the inconsistency was resolved.

Reply 2
It may be a desirable idea to put our conclusions to the test, but it is likely not a good idea on account of the impractability. This is true in two different ways:

• There is insufficient time (and often insufficient money)to constantly test our conclusions. For this reason I do not employ a food taster to guard against the possibility that my wife really does want to kill me.
• Some conclusions have no obvious testing procedure, a point emphasised by quatona in his response to me. For example, how do I test the possibility that all was created three weeks ago with embedded memories?

True, it is often impractical to put things to such rigorous testing. But there are also many cases where such testing has been done. There has been a great deal of testing how well homeopathy works, for example, and the results are consistently showing that homeopathy does not work. Another example is evolution - all scientific testing indicates that evolution is correct, and it has been studied for over a century.

As for your analogy that maybe your wife wants to kill you, there would, I am sure, be other indications if that were the case. Poisoned food would not be the only way to do it, after all.Also, you would be able to pick up subtle clues in your wife's behaviour that would indicate something is wrong. Also, if she wanted you dead, it would be very impractical to wait for so long.

As for your suggestion that the universe was created three weeks ago and we all have embedded memories, there is no test we could do, that's true, but then again, how would our lives be different if we did show it to be true? We'd still have to go to work to earn money to buy food. It's unlikely that such a discovery would result in the simulation shutting down, after all. In any case, if we can't show something scientifically, what impact can it possibly have on our lives?

Reply 3 (The Bonus Answer)

Following the election of Trump to the Presidency of the United States of America and his subsequent behaviour I have begun to suspect someone has been playing an elaborate joke on me that was almost seven decades in the making.
Really?
That's my point. I don't know.

But what would the point of that be?

 

[Kylie]

Generally? No.

Why not?

"Best" for what?

Best for obtaining the most accurate information about the world as possible.

No, I don´t think it´s random. It has its causes, even though I may not be fully aware of them.

But you can't actually be sure, can you?

What specifically do you want to know about these issues? I am not sure I have full insights into these inner processes. I guess a lot has to do with emotions and intuitions.
However, one important factor seems to be: Inhowmuch does/would it affect my life?

If I told you that magical fairies were what kept the sun going, would you believe me? I mean, it doesn't seem to affect your life very much whether it's magical fairies or nuclear processes that do it.

Tonight I am going to have a concert with my band. Before the gig I will check the equipment, even though I am pretty sure it´s ok. Sadly this check won´t guarantee that it won´t fail during the gig, either.
So, IOW, every time I use something, I am nolens volens also check if it works.
Is that the sort of example you were asking for?

No, that's not what I mean. I'm talking about trying to falsify an idea you have. Let me give an example.

There is a game using numbers. I tell you three single digit numbers, and there is a rule that those numbers follow. For example, if the rule is "The numbers increase by 2 each time," then 1, 3, 5 satisfy the rule, but 1, 2, 3 do not. To play the game, I come up with some rule, and you give me sequences of three numbers. I then tell you if that sequence satisfies the rule or not. Your aim is to figure out what the rule is.

Once, I played it with my husband. He first said, 1, 2, 3. I said it satisfied the rule. Then he said 4, 5, 6. Again, that satisfied the rule. Then he said 2, 3, 4. Again, it satisfied the rule. So he says, "The rules is that the numbers increase by one each time." I told him he was wrong. He actually got quite upset - the numbers he gave increased by one, and I was telling him that it satisfied the rule. So how was that not the rule? He couldn't understand how he could be wrong.

Then I said to him that he should have tried to falsify his hypothesis about the rule. He should have given a sequence that BREAKS what he thinks the rule is, and see what happens. He grumbled, but said, 1, 2, 5. It certainly broke what he thought the rule was, since it wasn't increasing by one, but it didn't break the rule I was using. He realised that he had gotten so obsessed with finding things to support what he thought was true that he was only trying out things which would validate it. A perfect example of confirmation bias. Of course, he was getting too frustrated now to continue playing, so I just told him - my rule was that each number is higher than the one before it.

So, my point is that we might think that the world works a certain way, but if we just keep testing things by doing it that way, we can't really know for sure. We must try to prove our ideas wrong. Because if we try to prove them wrong and we constantly fail to prove them wrong, then that gives us more information about the accuracy of our ideas.

Ok.
Metaphysical questions, however, tend to go beyond that. They do not only ask about the processes within the universe, they ask about the framework within which the universe exists.

But that is not within the realm of science, is it?

 

[Ophiolite]

Quite true, we need to base our worldview on the right perspectives.

But if our worldview is based on the WRONG axioms, wouldn't that tend to show itself in conclusions that don't match up with what we see in reality?

An example occurs to me; when Newton formulated his equations on gravity, he based them on the assumption that gravity was instantaneous. However, this lead to results inconsistent with reality, and it was only when Einstein came up with relativity which was based on the assumption that gravity effects propagated at the speed of light that the inconsistency was resolved.

Unfortunately selecting the right perspective is self-referential. It is dependent upon an initial perspective.
There is no intrinsic reason wrong axioms should reveal themselves incontradictions. Your example of Newton/Einstein is dealing with superficial matters, I'm discussing the brain-in-a-vat, the Matrix, recent creation, The Truman Show, type options.

True, it is often impractical to put things to such rigorous testing. But there are also many cases where such testing has been done. There has been a great deal of testing how well homeopathy works, for example, and the results are consistently showing that homeopathy does not work. Another example is evolution - all scientific testing indicates that evolution is correct, and it has been studied for over a century.

Perhaps I took you too literally. You didn't expect me to do all the testing. I can assign it to proxies. All well and good, but what if researchers stop checking on the failure of homeopathy to deliver anything more than a placebo? I think you didn't mean "constantly".

As for your analogy that maybe your wife wants to kill you, there would, I am sure, be other indications if that were the case. Poisoned food would not be the only way to do it, after all.Also, you would be able to pick up subtle clues in your wife's behaviour that would indicate something is wrong. Also, if she wanted you dead, it would be very impractical to wait for so long.

I wasn't thinking of it as an analogy. I'm pretty sure she does want to kill me.

As for your suggestion that the universe was created three weeks ago and we all have embedded memories, there is no test we could do, that's true, but then again, how would our lives be different if we did show it to be true? We'd still have to go to work to earn money to buy food. It's unlikely that such a discovery would result in the simulation shutting down, after all. In any case, if we can't show something scientifically, what impact can it possibly have on our lives?

Well, if that scenario were true, then we are bing lied to and some entity set up the situation and has some reason and that would not only be having an impact on our lives, it would be - in a sense - our lives. My underlying point remains - I was refuting your assertion that we should be putting our conclusions constantly to the test. You now appear to agree with me that does not apply when the method of testing is not at all obvious.

But what would the point of that be?

I already answered that . "That's the point. I don't know."

 

[Ophiolite]

But that is not within the realm of science, is it?

Sorry. I missed the point where we restricted answers to ones that could only be answered by science. That seems very artificial.

 

[quatona]

Sorry, I don´t have much time this morning. I´ll answer your questions later.
Just this.

But that is not within the realm of science, is it?

Exactly my point. If the subject isn´t within the realm of science, it is at least presumptious to expect to find the answer by applying scientific standards. We would need to enlarge the frame of reference.

 

[Kylie]

Unfortunately selecting the right perspective is self-referential. It is dependent upon an initial perspective.
There is no intrinsic reason wrong axioms should reveal themselves incontradictions. Your example of Newton/Einstein is dealing with superficial matters, I'm discussing the brain-in-a-vat, the Matrix, recent creation, The Truman Show, type options.

You are intentionally choosing things which have no way of being verified. Why is that? I am talking about what we can actually detect about the universe.

Perhaps I took you too literally. You didn't expect me to do all the testing. I can assign it to proxies. All well and good, but what if researchers stop checking on the failure of homeopathy to deliver anything more than a placebo? I think you didn't mean "constantly".

No, I didn't mean CONSTANTLY, and that's why I didn't use that word.

I said CONSISTENTLY. It's a different word with a different meaning. Please pay attention.

I wasn't thinking of it as an analogy. I'm pretty sure she does want to kill me.

Since you didn't address any of the points I made, shall I take it as you agreeing with me?

Well, if that scenario were true, then we are bing lied to and some entity set up the situation and has some reason and that would not only be having an impact on our lives, it would be - in a sense - our lives.

But it is still completely irrelevant since we can't tell. If I told you there was an invisible, intangible, weightless, silent and odor-free elephant sitting on your head, would it make any difference to you? Of course not.

My underlying point remains - I was refuting your assertion that we should be putting our conclusions constantly to the test. You now appear to agree with me that does not apply when the method of testing is not at all obvious.

Once again, I said CONSISTENTLY, not CONSTANTLY.

I already answered that . "That's the point. I don't know."

So you are suggesting that we actually spend time trying to figure out something that is being done for no reason, accomplishes nothing and is utterly undetectable and makes zero difference to our lives?

Why on earth would you want to do that?

 

[Kylie]

Sorry. I missed the point where we restricted answers to ones that could only be answered by science. That seems very artificial.

Sorry, I don´t have much time this morning. I´ll answer your questions later.
Just this.

Exactly my point. If the subject isn´t within the realm of science, it is at least presumptious to expect to find the answer by applying scientific standards. We would need to enlarge the frame of reference.

I'll reply to you both.

Then let me ask you this...

What useful or verifiable information about the universe has been discovered by examining metaphysical questions?

 

[Ophiolite]

First off, I am sensing an emotion in your recent posts. Perhaps I am misreading them, but there seems to be some anger? frustration? condescension? If I have done something to cause that I apologise, but I am at a loss to see what it is. I have answered as honestly and as relevantly as I am able.

You are intentionally choosing things which have no way of being verified. Why is that? I am talking about what we can actually detect about the universe.

I have not read the entire thread. I first became aware of it when you and quatona were already engaged in your discussion. I saw nothing in those exchanges or in the title of the thread to suggest some potential facts were to be excluded. Therefore I addressed those concepts that, were they true, would be to me, of prime importance.

I also note that at present these things may not be verifiable or refutable, that does not mean they will always be so. However, if we ignore them its very likely they will remain unverifiable or irrefutable.

No, I didn't mean CONSTANTLY, and that's why I didn't use that word.

I said CONSISTENTLY. It's a different word with a different meaning. Please pay attention.

I generally try to, but we can all make mistakes. Perhaps you said consistently in one or more of your posts, but in #661 you said this, and I quoted it in #663.

"So isn't it a good idea to constantly put them to the test?"

Since you didn't address any of the points I made, shall I take it as you agreeing with me?

My reply was too subtle. I used the ridiculous and singular example of a food taster to indicate how impractical it would be to test every possible fact or potential fact. I offered a silly response to your objections to reinforce the ludicrousness of the idea.

But it is still completely irrelevant since we can't tell. If I told you there was an invisible, intangible, weightless, silent and odor-free elephant sitting on your head, would it make any difference to you? Of course not.

If it was there it would make an enormous difference to me. It is only recently we have become aware of dark matter and it has most of the properties of your hypothetical elephant. The existence of such an entity would represent an expansion of the universe as we currently understand it.

So you are suggesting that we actually spend time trying to figure out something that is being done for no reason, accomplishes nothing and is utterly undetectable and makes zero difference to our lives?

You've erected too many strawmen in that question for me to be able to disentangle a meaningful question, or generate a relevant response.

Edited several minor typos @ 17:35 BST

 

[Halbhh]

Yeah, but it was SCIENCE that found the sprites, wasn't it? Not religion.

If there is something in the universe, science is the only tool that can actually detect it.

I honestly don't see the point of quoting those Bible verses.

Yes, that's a way to do some science. To search. "Seek". Its about whether you can take a leap of faith, and really seek. Just like many have in the sciences sought to find things before they knew for sure.

 

[Kylie]

I have not read the entire thread. I first became aware of it when you and quatona were already engaged in your discussion. I saw nothing in those exchanges or in the title of the thread to suggest some potential facts were to be excluded. Therefore I addressed those concepts that, were they true, would be to me, of prime importance.

We can't call anything a fact until we know it for sure. This thread is about how we get to know things for sure.

Do you know of a way to know if we are a brain in a jar for sure?

I also note that at present these things may not be verifiable or refutable, that does not mean they will always be so. However, if we ignore them its very likely they will remain unverifiable or irrefutable.

True. But then again, it would have been useless for Vikings to ponder nuclear fusion. Yes, fusion is real, but since the Vikings had no way to test the idea and no way to put it to use, it would have been a waste of their time.

I generally try to, but we can all make mistakes. Perhaps you said consistently in one or more of your posts, but in #661 you said this, and I quoted it in #663.

"So isn't it a good idea to constantly put them to the test?"

I did say consistently in the post you were quoting when you claimed I had use this, this is what I thought you were referring to.

I did say constantly in 661. Obviously, there comes a point when something has been tested so thoroughly that it is impractical to continue testing it. We no longer need to conduct tests to see how quickly an object will fall, for example. We know quite well that it's 9.8 meters per second squared.

My reply was too subtle. I used the ridiculous and singular example of a food taster to indicate how impractical it would be to test every possible fact or potential fact. I offered a silly response to your objections to reinforce the ludicrousness of the idea.

Yes, I noticed that example in post 663. I replied to it in 665. You then replied to my post in post 667, where you did not address any of the points I made in post 665. So I figured you had nothing further to say.

Of course, if you aren't interested in a serious discussion, that's your prerogative. Just say so, so I can avoid wasting my time.

If it was there it would make an enormous difference to me.

Please, tell me how your life would be different if such an elephant was constantly perched on top of your head.

It is only recently we have become aware of dark matter and it has most of the properties of your hypothetical elephant. The existence of such an entity would represent an expansion of the universe as we currently understand it.

No, I made it quite clear that this elephant was undetectable in every way.

You've erected too many strawmen in that question for me to be able to disentangle a meaningful question, or generate a relevant response.

Yet you are the one who seems to think that someone has crafted an elaborate practical joke by getting Trump elected, and it's all just for you? Yet there's no purpose to doing it other than the fact that this hypothetical person is capable of doing it?

 

[Kylie]

Yes, that's a way to do some science. To search. "Seek". Its about whether you can take a leap of faith, and really seek. Just like many have in the sciences sought to find things before they knew for sure.

You make it sound like scientists conduct science by just trying random stuff until something happens.

That may have been true a long time ago, but it is not any more.

Scientists find things to study by looking at current theories and saying, "Well, this theory says that such-and-such will happen. We've already got a lot of evidence to say that the theory is true, so maybe such-and-such does happen. If it does, how could we detect it? I'll build a detector to try and find such-and-such."

 

[quatona]

Then let me ask you this...
What useful or verifiable information about the universe has been discovered by examining metaphysical questions?

I am not sure why you ask me this. Let´s just assume the worst case: "Absolutely none". So what does that have to do with my argument? I haven´t been telling you that you have to engage in metaphysical considerations. But once you do, assuming that the answers and explanation have to be limited by the rules of physics as observed within the universe is presumptious - you have to allow for a larger frame of reference. That was my point.

 

[quatona]

Why not?

Probably because you and I have different priorities.

Best for obtaining the most accurate information about the world as possible.

That´s not per se of particularly great value to me. I tend to find collecting information for the sake of it pretty boring.

But you can't actually be sure, can you?

Sure of what?

If I told you that magical fairies were what kept the sun going, would you believe me? I mean, it doesn't seem to affect your life very much whether it's magical fairies or nuclear processes that do it.

I don´t recall saying "When it doesn´t affect my life, I will believe it.". Rather, I think, I said something to the effect of "If it doesn´t affect my life, I am rather indifferent, and I consider it irrelevant for any intent or purpose of mine."

No, that's not what I mean. I'm talking about trying to falsify an idea you have. Let me give an example.

There is a game using numbers. I tell you three single digit numbers, and there is a rule that those numbers follow. For example, if the rule is "The numbers increase by 2 each time," then 1, 3, 5 satisfy the rule, but 1, 2, 3 do not. To play the game, I come up with some rule, and you give me sequences of three numbers. I then tell you if that sequence satisfies the rule or not. Your aim is to figure out what the rule is.

Once, I played it with my husband. He first said, 1, 2, 3. I said it satisfied the rule. Then he said 4, 5, 6. Again, that satisfied the rule. Then he said 2, 3, 4. Again, it satisfied the rule. So he says, "The rules is that the numbers increase by one each time." I told him he was wrong. He actually got quite upset - the numbers he gave increased by one, and I was telling him that it satisfied the rule. So how was that not the rule? He couldn't understand how he could be wrong.

Then I said to him that he should have tried to falsify his hypothesis about the rule. He should have given a sequence that BREAKS what he thinks the rule is, and see what happens. He grumbled, but said, 1, 2, 5. It certainly broke what he thought the rule was, since it wasn't increasing by one, but it didn't break the rule I was using. He realised that he had gotten so obsessed with finding things to support what he thought was true that he was only trying out things which would validate it. A perfect example of confirmation bias. Of course, he was getting too frustrated now to continue playing, so I just told him - my rule was that each number is higher than the one before it.

So, my point is that we might think that the world works a certain way, but if we just keep testing things by doing it that way, we can't really know for sure. We must try to prove our ideas wrong. Because if we try to prove them wrong and we constantly fail to prove them wrong, then that gives us more information about the accuracy of our ideas.

Whenever I plug in my amplifier and switch it on, I am putting a whole bunch of my ideas about electricity, physics and causality to the test. I don´t seem to understand why that doesn´t count as an attempt at falsifying them, in your book. So what would I have to do in order to follow your advice? I mean, physics and stuff aren´t mindgames about abstractly invented rules - as in your example.

 

[Halbhh]

You make it sound like scientists conduct science by just trying random stuff until something happens.

That may have been true a long time ago, but it is not any more.

Scientists find things to study by looking at current theories and saying, "Well, this theory says that such-and-such will happen. We've already got a lot of evidence to say that the theory is true, so maybe such-and-such does happen. If it does, how could we detect it? I'll build a detector to try and find such-and-such."

Since I actually know about what was and what is now being searched for at such as the LHC (large hadron collider), well....it's searching for stuff they don't know much about, and the beautiful theory of supersymmetry looks dead, and what is being looked for is truly anything unknown at this point, anything new and odd, of any kind.

Any kind. In fact, it's desperately hoped for, because without some new discovery of some real unknown stuff, unpredictable, unexpected (you could almost say "random", but it's not quite the word is it?), soon, the possibility of not being able to figure out more using the LHC soon starts to look possible. Of course, a lot of guessing is going on about what else to do, and it's...

It's searching for the unknown, in the dark, without much to go on, just guesses about possibilities.

It's....funny that your wording is almost like the reality, sort of parallel in a way -- it's sorta almost like "just trying stuff at random", although that's not very informative, and would be too hyperbolic.

Now this is pretty far from the point of discussion I was pointing at though -- whether a person could set out to try to discover if God is real. A person can. Good News -- that's not even slightly like "just trying stuff at random". Because the person that told us "love one another" also told us instructions for how to find God.

 

[Kylie]

I am not sure why you ask me this. Let´s just assume the worst case: "Absolutely none". So what does that have to do with my argument? I haven´t been telling you that you have to engage in metaphysical considerations. But once you do, assuming that the answers and explanation have to be limited by the rules of physics as observed within the universe is presumptious - you have to allow for a larger frame of reference. That was my point.

But this is a thread about how to find out what is factual. Unless examining metaphysical questions can lead to that, why is it being discussed in this thread?

 

[Kylie]

Probably because you and I have different priorities.

Given that this thread is about determining what is factual, can you show me how sometimes having MORE assumptions can provide better information?

That´s not per se of particularly great value to me. I tend to find collecting information for the sake of it pretty boring.

When did I ever say it was to collect information for the sake of it?

Sure of what?

That it's not random.

I don´t recall saying "When it doesn´t affect my life, I will believe it.". Rather, I think, I said something to the effect of "If it doesn´t affect my life, I am rather indifferent, and I consider it irrelevant for any intent or purpose of mine."

If I gave you two explanations for why the sun shone - one being magical fairies and the other being nuclear processes - neither of those is particularly relevant to you. All that is relevant to you is that the sun continues to shine, after all. But would you consider them to have the same weight?

Whenever I plug in my amplifier and switch it on, I am putting a whole bunch of my ideas about electricity, physics and causality to the test. I don´t seem to understand why that doesn´t count as an attempt at falsifying them, in your book. So what would I have to do in order to follow your advice? I mean, physics and stuff aren´t mindgames about abstractly invented rules - as in your example.

Trying to get something to work in the way you expect it to is not falsifying it. Falisification means intentionally trying something that DOESN'T work. Because if you think that something works one way and can't work another way, trying it the other way is the only way to make sure it doesn't work.

You believe that your amp works via plugging it in. You might try to falsify this by seeing it it works when you spray the hose at it, to see if water will make it run instead of electricity. Now, IF (and I agree that it's a big if) the amp somehow starts working when it's receiving water instead of electricity, then you have indeed falsified your belief that it works on electricity.