Ten arguments for intelligent design

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Its interesting .. the model you have for of all this, brings up cause and effect .. ie: the laws don't cause (or determine) the effect (the behaviour) .. and yet cause/effect is a very slippery slope in physics.

I suppose all I'm pointing out is that the map is not the territory.

The model I present however, treats a prediction as a belief under test. Such beliefs are prescriptive (in the sense of giving us an idea about what we can expect).

I wouldn't argue with that, although I don't think predictions are necessarily beliefs. When the prediction of a hypothesis is tested, there is often doubt about its validity.

Its really a personal choice as to which model one chooses ... I guess I'm more passionate about keeping track of precisely how we arrived at both respective models and always remembering any assumptions made along the way. I don't have to work that hard in remembering any however because objective testing reproduces the evidence, whereas yours starts out with the fundamental untestable belief that we are observing 'something independent' from us, which then permeates everything following that, making it very complex to redistinguish similarly repeated assumptions. (I hope I'm not putting words in your mouth here .. I'm just trying to fast-track a little here).

My understanding is that it is a common position that science makes a few implicit assumptions, along the lines that there is an objective reality, that it has observable regularities. YMMV.

And yet you still hold 'the behaviour of the universe' in a way that implies the universe as being something held independently from us? (Ie: rather than, itself, being a testable mind model we came up with?)

The universe isn't independent of us if we are part of it. It seems to me that the universe is what is modelled by your testable mind model, and what it is tested against.

 

[SelfSim]

I suppose all I'm pointing out is that the map is not the territory.

Which is yet just another one of those sort of glib truisms .. (not having a go at you here .. truisms are very common .. but often quite unscientifically founded).
I presume you're using it as a way of distinguishing maps of reality, from 'reality itself', so it could be viewed as a confirmation of mind independent reality. But that's not actually a scientifically correct interpretation because it does not restrict to operational (testable) meanings. The scientifically accessible interpretation is that what we call a 'map' is a different kind of concept than what we call a 'territory', but they are both quite demonstrably concepts, so they are actually just different kinds of maps. So the truism, for a scientific thinker, should actually be 'what we call a territory is a different type of map, with different uses and testable justifications, than what we call a map'. After all, that is the only claim that science could ever test: whether or not the purposes we lay out for our meaning of "map" and "territory", are suitably serving our needs.
It's as though some people think "maps" and "territories" are just handed to us, and our minds have no part in deciding what we want those words to mean!

I wouldn't argue with that, although I don't think predictions are necessarily beliefs. When the prediction of a hypothesis is tested, there is often doubt about its validity.

Sure .. but that's after its tested out. Before its tested out, its a belief under test. Aka: predictions are not admissible to objective reality until they've been (independently) verified.

My understanding is that it is a common position that science makes a few implicit assumptions, along the lines that there is an objective reality, that it has observable regularities.

Objective reality is what science produces. There's no need to assume such things exist because such things have already been tested out. All of science's definitional terms (eg: in physics) are operationally defined (meaning there's a process articulated and usually the process has been verified, which means the definitions have usually already been tested .. maybe some(?) in theory, I suppose?).

The universe isn't independent of us if we are part of it. It seems to me that the universe is what is modelled by your testable mind model, and what it is tested against.

(See the above 'map vs territory' description).

 

[Ophiolite]

Sure .. but that's after its tested out. Before its tested out, its a belief under test. Aka: predictions are not admissible to objective reality until they've been (independently) verified.

You continue with this flawed logic.
It is understood that a prediction is not reality.
A prediction is a prediction: a recognition that if certain conditions are met then a specified "reality" will be encountered.

Please note, as always, I use the the term "reality" pragmatically.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Which is yet just another one of those sort of glib truisms .. (not having a go at you here .. truisms are very common .. but often quite unscientifically founded).

It's a shame that it's so often necessary to use them.

I presume you're using it as a way of distinguishing maps of reality, from 'reality itself', so it could be viewed as a confirmation of mind independent reality. But that's not actually a scientifically correct interpretation because it does not restrict to operational (testable) meanings. The scientifically accessible interpretation is that what we call a 'map' is a different kind of concept than what we call a 'territory', but they are both quite demonstrably concepts, so they are actually just different kinds of maps. So the truism, for a scientific thinker, should actually be 'what we call a territory is a different type of map, with different uses and testable justifications, than what we call a map'. After all, that is the only claim that science could ever test: whether or not the purposes we lay out for our meaning of "map" and "territory", are suitably serving our needs.
It's as though some people think "maps" and "territories" are just handed to us, and our minds have no part in deciding what we want those words to mean!

I'm suggesting that if you develop a model, there is a 'something' that you observe to obtain data for your model. It may be that what your observations lead you to think you are modelling is different from what you are observing (e.g. classical vs quantum measurement).

Sure .. but that's after its tested out. Before its tested out, its a belief under test. Aka: predictions are not admissible to objective reality until they've been (independently) verified.

The way I see it, a prediction is proposal that only becomes a belief once verified.

Objective reality is what science produces. There's no need to assume such things exist because such things have already been tested out. All of science's definitional terms (eg: in physics) are operationally defined (meaning there's a process articulated and usually the process has been verified, which means the definitions have usually already been tested .. maybe some(?) in theory, I suppose?).

Seems to me that science produces models of reality based on how it behaves under observation. If you want to call those models objective reality I won't argue. Semantic niceties.

 

[sjastro]

On the subject of maths being invented to describe physical reality, the subject of algebraic topology one of the most intellectually challenging fields of pure mathematics deals with concepts that go beyond our physical world.

One such concept is a Klein Bottle which can only exist in four spatial dimensions.
A good non mathematical description of Klein Bottles is given in the first half of this video.

Algebraic topology has made inroads into physics; in cosmology it is now being used to model large scale structures forming the cosmic web.

Algebraic topology has been around for centuries before anyone saw a connection with the physical universe.
Perhaps our physical reality of the universe is a veneer with an underlying mathematical structure as suggested by Penrose, waiting to be utilized by clever scientists.

 

[SelfSim]

It's a shame that it's so often necessary to use them.

I'm not sure why that is so .. but I accept what you say there.

I'm suggesting that if you develop a model, there is a 'something' that you observe to obtain data for your model.

.. and I'm saying the 'something' bit of that, is totally unnecessary and when the notion that 'the something' physically exists 'externally' or 'out there', is put to the objective test, it produces absolutely zip verifying evidence.

It may be that what your observations lead you to think you are modelling is different from what you are observing (e.g. classical vs quantum measurement).

How could you possibly ever know of that difference? Aliens, Fairies (or God) informing us of that or something?

The way I see it, a prediction is proposal that only becomes a belief once verified.

Beliefs are untestable notions in science .. so how could it still be a belief after its tested out? (Ie: How do you define a belief?)

Seems to me that science produces models of reality based on how it behaves under observation.

The models are the reality (this is not just a mere personal claim .. its an evidence based conclusion) .. there is no evidence of 'it'.

If you want to call those models objective reality I won't argue. Semantic niceties.

I think I'd be prepared to accept a human observation process sequence as: data=>perceptions=>model=>description (using language) .. Yep .. that's it!

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

.. and I'm saying the 'something' bit of that, is totally unnecessary and when the notion that 'the something' physically exists 'externally' or 'out there', is put to the objective test, it produces absolutely zip verifying evidence.

The confirmation is that multiple observers produce the same or very similar observations and can derive the same models for them. That's assuming you accept that there are other observers...

How could you possibly ever know of that difference? Aliens, Fairies (or God) informing us of that or something?

New observations, e.g. the wave-particle confusion of early QM, and the following realisation that particles didn't have a particular position or momentum until we measured them (depending on your interpretation), but were in a superposition, which meant what our observations led us to believe we were modelling, e.g. particles with a position & momentum, was different from what we were really observing.

Beliefs are untestable notions in science .. so how could it still be a belief after its tested out? (Ie: How do you define a belief?)

A belief is something accepted as true. In science, if used at all, it's something provisionally accepted as true. When testing a prediction of a hypothesis, you're testing a logical consequence of that hypothesis; you don't know whether you should accept the prediction as provisionally true until it has been verified.

 

[SelfSim]

The confirmation is that multiple observers produce the same or very similar observations and can derive the same models for them. That's assuming you accept that there are other observers...

Sure .. is that so surprising for the version of science you're familiar with?

New observations, e.g. the wave-particle confusion of early QM, and the following realisation that particles didn't have a particular position or momentum until we measured them (depending on your interpretation), but were in a superposition, which meant what our observations led us to believe we were modelling, e.g. particles with a position & momentum, was different from what we were really observing.

And so the expectation itself is now under study. The original expectation had this hard core, and very stubborn notion, (a belief), about Realism embedded within it .. and it still remains there ...

A belief is something accepted as true. In science, if used at all, it's something provisionally accepted as true. When testing a prediction of a hypothesis, you're testing a logical consequence of that hypothesis; you don't know whether you should accept the prediction as provisionally true until it has been verified.

Holding something as 'provisionally true' still posits the existence of truth as being the 'end game'. The testing cannot logically be used to justify the mind independence of such a notion .. because it leads to inconsistencies assumed as 'being true'.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Sure .. is that so surprising for the version of science you're familiar with?

Of course not, it's one of the supporting pillars. Why would it be surprising?

Holding something as 'provisionally true' still posits the existence of truth as being the 'end game'.

Kind of; it's the acknowledgement of an aspiration to achieve observations and models that accurately capture all observable aspects of whatever it is we're observing. I'd be inclined to call the aspirational results 'pragmatic' or 'observable' reality, just as we call the universe we can observe 'the observable universe' because we're pretty sure there's more.

The testing cannot logically be used to justify the mind independence of such a notion .. because it leads to inconsistencies assumed as 'being true'.

Not quite sure what you mean - can you give an example?

 

[SelfSim]

Of course not, it's one of the supporting pillars. Why would it be surprising?

What is totally surprising, is that the human 'observers' also share in the common functions of a human mind, and there is no objective test which would exclude that type of mind's role in coming to the miraculous conclusion about the existence of things independent from that type of human mind!

All you are testing for is the commonalities there .. and not something existing independently from that! To claim that it is, is simply an unevidenced Leap of Faith.

There is a more consistent and objectively evidenced explanation for those consistencies .. its called the MDR hypothesis.
(Apologies: to Bungle_Bear for using that term again).

Kind of; it's the acknowledgement of an aspiration to achieve observations and models that accurately capture all observable aspects of whatever it is we're observing.

I'd like to know how one can 'aspire' by not using one's mind to do that? All of what you just said there is just your mind's model .. (and there's no evidence for anything beyond than that ... which also includes the 'it').

I'd be inclined to call the aspirational results 'pragmatic' or 'observable' reality, just as we call the universe we can observe 'the observable universe' because we're pretty sure there's more.

'Pragmatism' is what humans alone demonstrably do .. 'universe' is also demonstrably a testable mind model which shows no signs of any 'thing' being independent from the observers which conceive of such a model.

A belief is something accepted as true. In science, if used at all, it's something provisionally accepted as true. When testing a prediction of a hypothesis, you're testing a logical consequence of that hypothesis; you don't know whether you should accept the prediction as provisionally true until it has been verified.

Holding something as 'provisionally true' still posits the existence of truth as being the 'end game'. The testing cannot logically be used to justify the mind independence of such a notion .. because it leads to inconsistencies assumed as 'being true’.

Not quite sure what you mean - can you give an example?

I need to firstly clarify here (by way of my understanding):
You say: a test in science is testing the logical consequence of say, a prediction of some hypothesis.
I say: testing in science is about testing a model, or concept .. and never 'the thing itself' .. and then looking at the resulting evidence.

A 'logical consequence' is still demonstrably, a model. That model however, posits the untestable existence of some ’truth’ (because that’s the measure, or outcome, you're seeking to 'expose' following its test - Ie: the underlying 'truth' already (supposedly) 'exists', IIUC?) Where this is so, this measure is inconsistent with the observable fact that 'logic', itself, along with its test, is a human devised process and never excludes the human from that test which somehow nonetheless aims at exposing the posited, supposedly independent, 'truth'.
Somehow (perhaps?), you believe that you're testing: 'whether a logical consequence of that hypothesis', 'is already independently true' (or not) of the very human minds which developed and conducted that entire process of logic? Is this what you mean?
Because, if it is, for me, this is circular reasoning at its finest .. the outcome is guaranteed by virtue of its premise .. yet the premise was always an untestable or 'believed-in' measure, or standard, of: 'independent truth'.

Mind you, I'm not clear whether you're actually saying any of the above or not at the moment. Can you please advise?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

What is totally surprising, is that the human 'observers' also share in the common functions of a human mind, and there is no objective test which would exclude that type of mind's role in coming to the miraculous conclusion about the existence of things independent from that type of human mind!

All you are testing for is the commonalities there .. and not something existing independently from that! To claim that it is, is simply an unevidenced Leap of Faith.

I would call it an inference. Ultimately, all we have to go on is Cartesian 'Cogito ergo sum', and even that has been questioned. From there it's all inference - if we accept that we have physical brains, all our data comes to us as neural spike trains, electrochemical morse code; even internal constructs, e.g. self - from this we build models of our internal milieu and of the source of those incoming signals, using evolutionary templates that have literally survived the test of time. My view (and the common view) is that these models have referents, the distal causes of those neural spike trains, which I call objective reality.

I can only navigate and manipulate that reality indirectly, via the inferential models I've made, but none of it would make sense without that inferred ultimate referent, the source of the data from which the models are constructed. And, yes, my inference of an external reality is also a mental construct.

Your language has been sufficiently opaque to me that I'm not sure quite where you see the problem with this.

I'd like to know how one can 'aspire' by not using one's mind to do that? All of what you just said there is just your mind's model .. (and there's no evidence for anything beyond than that ... which also includes the 'it').

I didn't say otherwise. So what?

'Pragmatism' is what humans alone demonstrably do .. 'universe' is also demonstrably a testable mind model which shows no signs of any 'thing' being independent from the observers which conceive of such a model.

Not sure what you're saying here; testable mind models are themselves evidence of something that is not the observer.

You say: a test in science is testing the logical consequence of say, a prediction of some hypothesis.
I say: testing in science is about testing a model, or concept .. and never 'the thing itself' .. and then looking at the resulting evidence.

What 'thing itself' do you mean? a hypothesis is a model, and its predictions are implications of that model, so in testing a hypothesis you're testing the implications of a model.

Somehow (perhaps?), you believe that you're testing: 'whether a logical consequence of that hypothesis', 'is already independently true' (or not) of the very human minds which developed and conducted that entire process of logic? Is this what you mean?

No, by testing a logical consequence of the hypothesis (model), you're testing the model. If the prediction is falsified, the model is invalidated, and this has pragmatic import, significant meaning - the model does not comport with what it is proposing to model, which I call objective reality.

Mind you, I'm not clear whether you're actually saying any of the above or not at the moment. Can you please advise?

I'm not really sure what you're suggesting I'm saying. I find rather hard to understand exactly what your argument is...

 

[SelfSim]

.. Your language has been sufficiently opaque to me that I'm not sure quite where you see the problem with this.
...
Not sure what you're saying here; testable mind models are themselves evidence of something that is not the observer.

What 'thing itself' do you mean? a hypothesis is a model, and its predictions are implications of that model, so in testing a hypothesis you're testing the implications of a model.

No, by testing a logical consequence of the hypothesis (model), you're testing the model. If the prediction is falsified, the model is invalidated, and this has pragmatic import, significant meaning - the model does not comport with what it is proposing to model, which I call objective reality.

I'm not really sure what you're suggesting I'm saying. I find rather hard to understand exactly what your argument is...

I think the problem in misunderstandings here, stems from an adherence to the notion that 'something exists out there'.. independently from our perceptions. Our perceptions are the only thing we have any testable evidence for (and not 'something already existing out there').
I made a post here on the other thread, here, as a way of trying to clarify where I'm coming from. (I hope it helps .. by way of clarification).

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I think the problem in misunderstandings here, stems from an adherence to the notion that 'something exists out there'.. independently from our perceptions. Our perceptions are the only thing we have any testable evidence for (and not 'something already existing out there').

Perception means to become aware of something by means of the senses. The general consensus is that our peripheral senses are stimulated by what exists out there. This is an arbitrary, but pragmatic, boundary, and it seems reasonable to suppose that our senses would not be stimulated in the way they are if there was not something out there stimulating them.

I made a post here on the other thread, here, as a way of trying to clarify where I'm coming from. (I hope it helps .. by way of clarification).

You appear to be saying that the language we use is a human construct. I have no argument with that; I've read Wittgenstein on semantics.

 

[SelfSim]

Perception means to become aware of something by means of the senses. The general consensus is that our peripheral senses are stimulated by what exists out there. This is an arbitrary, but pragmatic, boundary, and it seems reasonable to suppose that our senses would not be stimulated in the way they are if there was not something out there stimulating them.

Once again the realist notion demands a query along its own lines of cause and effect .. (the slippery slope which never appears in any science models .. and is thus, never tested).
Science starts with an observation, (there is no particular need for anything 'causing' that), because an observation is all science can test.

You appear to be saying that the language we use is a human construct. I have no argument with that;

Well if you have no argument with that, you'd have no argument with that the words: 'exists' or; 'reality' or; 'is', must therefore also have meanings which are human constructs then?
(Otherwise on what basis would the meanings of these particular words be excluded from all the rest?)

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Once again the realist notion demands a query along its own lines of cause and effect .. (the slippery slope which never appears in any science models .. and is thus, never tested).
Science starts with an observation, (there is no particular need for anything 'causing' that), because an observation is all science can test.

Observation is the start. This is followed by devising hypotheses to explain the observation.

Well if you have no argument with that, you'd have no argument with that the words: 'exists' or; 'reality' or; 'is', must therefore also have meanings which are human constructs then?
(Otherwise on what basis would the meanings of these particular words be excluded from all the rest?)

Sure; all our language consists of human constructs. That doesn't mean the referents of words are necessarily human constructs. We give names to perceptual patterns that are not of our construction.

 

[SelfSim]

Observation is the start. This is followed by devising hypotheses to explain the observation.

An observation in science is loosely; the 'what', the 'where' and the 'when' .. so this gets recorded (objectified), once all those elements come together. That recording becomes an objectified model. That model can be used to test with the overall aim of verifying (or otherwise) other testable beliefs which we call hypotheses. Those hypotheses may also make testable predictions. However all of this is visibly a process the mind follows .. and that's what defines science .. ie: the visible process in action.

Sure; all our language consists of human constructs. That doesn't mean the referents of words are necessarily human constructs.

The meanings of all the words you used there, are. Its us who choose how to apply those meanings in order to make sense of our observations (or perceptions). There is no evidence supporting 'referents' as existing independently from our perceptions, due to the lack of some test for that.

I can see I'm just not getting through here on how I envisage our minds working on this front.
Let me try an example which might help to illustrate(?) I'll use one I've posted on the other thread:

'So, say I talked about planets that form, have rivers cut canyons on them, and then freeze into oblivion as their stars die, and no mind ever knows anything about those planets. Those are not mind independent planets .. because it was my mind that just told you about such hypothetical entities, and hence my mind gave meaning to everything I just said.

Since I could not possibly know what meaning you took from the words I just used, then your mind also gave those words meaning .. again the mind dependence is completely clear, and you and I might not be picturing the same planet there at all. That's still mind dependence.

Say you only now learned about a specific planet ‘XYZ’ in that group of planets .. your mind gave your knowledge (about 'XYZ being in that group') that specific meaning. That meaning simply did not exist yesterday .. That meaning didn't exist in some unformed ethereal glow, that you could 'discover', which you call 'mind independent', (or 'physical universe'), simply because your knowledge didn't exist.

Perhaps some other person knew a bunch of stuff about ‘XYZ’ before you did, and then their minds gave meaning to their knowledge, which is of course demonstrably different from your knowledge. More mind dependence there'.

Nothing anywhere in that story is mind independent and I can see quite easily the role of all the minds involved. Any 'jump' to mind independence simply appears as a miracle!

Does that example help to clarify, a little more, where I'm coming from?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

An observation in science is loosely; the 'what', the 'where' and the 'when' .. so this gets recorded (objectified), once all those elements come together. That recording becomes an objectified model. That model can be used to test with the overall aim of verifying (or otherwise) other testable beliefs which we call hypotheses. Those hypotheses may also make testable predictions. However all of this is visibly a process the mind follows .. and that's what defines science .. ie: the visible process in action.

Yes, no argument there - except for the use of 'belief' for proposition (hypothesis).

The meanings of all the words you used there, are. Its us who choose how to apply those meanings in order to make sense of our observations (or perceptions). There is no evidence supporting 'referents' as existing independently from our perceptions, due to the lack of some test for that.

As I already said it's all inference. Our observations lead us to generate hypotheses, such as mind-independent reality, the predictions of which we discover to be consistent with that hypothesis. Yes, the meaning of mind-independent reality is a human construct, and yes, the interpretations of our observations are human constructs.

'So, say I talked about planets that form, have rivers cut canyons on them, and then freeze into oblivion as their stars die, and no mind ever knows anything about those planets. Those are not mind independent planets .. because it was my mind that just told you about such hypothetical entities, and hence my mind gave meaning to everything I just said.

Since I could not possibly know what meaning you took from the words I just used, then your mind also gave those words meaning .. again the mind dependence is completely clear, and you and I might not be picturing the same planet there at all. That's still mind dependence.

Say you only now learned about a specific planet ‘XYZ’ in that group of planets .. your mind gave your knowledge (about 'XYZ being in that group') that specific meaning. That meaning simply did not exist yesterday .. That meaning didn't exist in some unformed ethereal glow, that you could 'discover', which you call 'mind independent', (or 'physical universe'), simply because your knowledge didn't exist.

Perhaps some other person knew a bunch of stuff about ‘XYZ’ before you did, and then their minds gave meaning to their knowledge, which is of course demonstrably different from your knowledge. More mind dependence there'.

Nothing anywhere in that story is mind independent and I can see quite easily the role of all the minds involved. Any 'jump' to mind independence simply appears as a miracle!

Does that example help to clarify, a little more, where I'm coming from?

Not really - you seem to be saying that fictional or hypothetical planets are not mind-independent. I don't have a problem with that because they're imaginary.

If you had provided observational evidence for those planets, I would assess the likelihood that they were real mind-independent entities by the quality of that evidence.

 

[SelfSim]

Yes, no argument there - except for the use of 'belief' for proposition (hypothesis).

I define a belief as 'any notion held as being true for any reason'. An hypothesis fits that definition. Its important to maintain all hypotheses under test, as being beliefs .. for tracking purposes. Otherwise, they tend to become regarded as being facts (or maybe theories) with all the usual ensuing misconceptions in conversations.

As I already said it's all inference. Our observations lead us to generate hypotheses, such as mind-independent reality, the predictions of which we discover to be consistent with that hypothesis. Yes, the meaning of mind-independent reality is a human construct, and yes, the interpretations of our observations are human constructs.

.. And the hypothesis of mind independent reality is never tested .. it is untestable (until someone cites a completely mind independent test) .. It is thus a belief and not 'an hypothesis', for that very reason.

Its always the 'consistencies' which are being tested. The human mind is very capable of perceiving consistencies. There is variation also .. (no two minds perceive something in exactly the same way). This is all clearly mind dependent stuff.
Testing consistencies does not provide evidence of mind independence .. (it produces evidence of the opposite, in fact).

Not really - you seem to be saying that fictional or hypothetical planets are not mind-independent. I don't have a problem with that because they're imaginary.
If you had provided observational evidence for those planets, I would assess the likelihood that they were real mind-independent entities by the quality of that evidence.

Its good that you see that the scenario was a hypothetical.

Now, lets move onto paragraph#2 then: "Since I could not possibly know what meaning you took from the words I just used, then your mind also gave those words meaning .. again the mind dependence is completely clear, and you and I might not be picturing the same planet there at all. That's still mind dependence."

Hearing makes use of our auditory senses. When we hear things we form perceptions then when combined with the other elements I mentioned, those perceptions become observations. This is exactly the same process as if we had observed those planets through a telescope. The visual observation still ends up forming a perception. It's still evidence of mind dependence.

The notion that what we're observing is somehow independent from our minds, is a completely superfluous 'add-on' which is untestable (and never gets tested). Its a belief and it has absolutely nothing to do with the observation of previously unseen planets. The entire notion is completely empty and open to all the usual abuses.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I define a belief as 'any notion held as being true for any reason'. An hypothesis fits that definition. Its important to maintain all hypotheses under test, as being beliefs .. for tracking purposes. Otherwise, they tend to become regarded as being facts (or maybe theories) with all the usual ensuing misconceptions in conversations.

Wait, what?
In my world, a hypothesis is a proposition not a belief, and holding something as true (believing it) is tantamount to regarding it as fact.

No wonder I have such difficulty following your posts... we seem to be two people separated by a common language.

I'm not really interested in learning SelfSimglish, so I'll withdraw. Thanks for making the effort.

 

[SelfSim]

Wait, what?
In my world, a hypothesis is a proposition not a belief, and holding something as true (believing it) is tantamount to regarding it as fact.

Then your scientific 'world' depends entirely upon a belief being used as a measure (or a criterion). It is also, a circular argument.
Disappointing .. but so be it.

See, your above argument conceals the underlying (and undeclared) assumption of the 'existence of truth', (ie: 'holding something as true'), as being the measure of what is a fact, and what isn't a fact .. and yet there is no test we can do to establish 'the existence of truth' (your measure) in the first place! This of course, also violates science's principle of using only operational definitions, what's more. 'A proposition' is used as a rather insidious way of concealing this. I view it as being more or less, a weasel concept.

In science, there are no 'truths'. The closest any scientist ever comes to approaching a concept related to 'truth' as a measure, is never meant as being anything more than the last best tested theory, or hypothesis.

I find it difficult to fathom why those who consider themselves being adept 'scientific thinkers' in this forum, cannot see that they have turned science into their own religion (by basing it on beliefs like the 'the existence of truth'), in order to argue against those who, at least, declare themselves as holding religious beliefs?

No wonder I have such difficulty following your posts... we seem to be two people separated by a common language.

I'm not really interested in learning SelfSimglish, so I'll withdraw. Thanks for making the effort.

Hmm .. a mere diversionary tactic as a way of concealing the glaringly obvious reliance on a fundamental belief you hold here.

Be assured, this matter won't go away merely because of the various retreats and trivial dismissals (ie: 'parting shots') declared in this thread ...