Causal exclusion problem

[SelfSim]

Uh huh...I don't think you're doing any science. I don't think you're a scientist in any field.

What you think about that .. doesn't influence the testing.
Get with the test.

I genuinely don't care about your personal definitions. I'm using the common tongue. Belief has a meaning and I won't be accommodating your personal definitions. Beliefs are beliefs.

Hilarious!
I couldn't care less for your truisms and aphorisms.
Give me your operational definition.

Why do you believe that?

I don't .. It works .. Its useful.

What could you possibly test it on?

Semantic meanings conveyed in language. Meanings expose evidence of the minds using them.

Your belief that MDR is a testable hypothesis isn't something testable by the scientific method.

Agreed .. which is why its not a belief that's being tested using the well published, widely taught scientific method.

Depends upon the results and method used to achieve them.

Achieve what? .. The hypothesis?
All an hypothesis has to demonstrate, is its testability via the scientific method .. (namely because that's what 'hypothesis' means in science).

Oh no...I certainly have seen fraud. Take this lady for example....

McClain Probes $9.7 Million Taxpayer-Funded Study Buried by Activist Researcher on Puberty Blockers - United States House Committee on Oversight and Accountability

United States House Committee on Oversight and Accountability

oversight.house.gov

You'd think she would be immediately stripped of her credentials, doctorate, ability to practice, etc.

America’s best-known practitioner of youth gender medicine is being sued

Johanna Olson-Kennedy leads the Centre for Transyouth at LA’s Children’s Hospital. One of her patients thinks she has been negligent

www.economist.com

Now she's being sued. She believed in a socially constructed reality that doesn't exist for physical testing. It's not really a problem if she understands this....but as a doctor, nobody cares what her social views are. They want facts from her as a Dr. They want accurate diagnosis. They want best practice treatment. It shouldn't matter that the evidence and facts contradicted her faith and beliefs....she should have reported the facts and adjusted her practice accordingly.

I hope she loses everything. A so-called expert motivated by personal beliefs of what is true....and not the evidence.

I'm not familiar with that case .. and I'm not withholding any test results .. I demonstrate the SM method and show everyone the resutls of these MDR (semantic) tests in this forum .. but one has to actually look to see the evidence of that.

Wow...since I've always considered that impossible to do, I would wonder why you would ever need to consult other minds? Clearly you're viewing things exactly as they are without any influence.

I'm not getting through to you .. The hard part is disinguishing any (relevant) beliefs in the first place. That's why the definition of 'what a belief is', which I provided, is an operational definition, ie: looks to see if some claim doesn't follow from objective tests and/or is not constrained by the rules of logic. Anyone can check to do that, before posting a bold claim. If they have made a mistake, it'll show up.
None of that is impossible.

If you think that's some sort of problem for me....we can compare just how many different beliefs and worldviews we've considered.

I don't know if that's a problem for you or not. So I'll ask: Is it?

Do you think a rain-dance can make it rain?

Show me: the test, demonstrate the method used .. and show me the results.

I find this disappointing. I've understood education is in decline...but I would expect some sort of bare bones understanding of how we reached the scientific method (as it currently stands) for someone with a degree in physics or chemistry.

Anyone can do science .. good or bad .. regardless of their formal academic achievements.

Your emotional disappointment is indicative of your belief-based mode of assessment.
I'm thus not particularly concerned with the expectation you formed prior to that assessment.

 

[SelfSim]

I think he's recycling subjective realism to some degree.

Subjective idealism - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

This form of idealism is "subjective" not because it denies that there is an objective reality, but because it asserts that this reality is completely dependent upon the minds of the subjects that perceive it.

Does that look familiar? Sure...we can add the term models in there a few times to make it closer. Philosophy tends to rewrite the same things over and over in new ways.

Hmm .. like all philosophical definitions I've seen about philosophical positions, they deliberately deny displays of human behaviours clearly visible across the population of thinking humans.

Do you see what I'm on about with how the MDR hypothesis avoids that very aspect? This is why its not a purely philosophical stance .. its science ... and not philosophy. I might agree that it looks like a mish-mash of a whole bunch of philosophy, some psychology and objective testing .. but science has always grabbed all sorts of ideas with the aim of making them useful. I'm not denying Realism may very well be one of those ideas. Its certainly extremely common in scientific thinking but that doesn't mean its the only way to approach science or is a fundamental bedrock of science. The MDR hypothesis represents another such approach .. and it sticks to the scientific method and operational definitions, as well as a typical Realist scientific practioner would should.

Using the MDR viewpoint provides us with a slightly different perspective on science .. and it infers some surprising conclusions which make us think twice about ideas like: some true mind independent reality existing .. and produces questions like: Why is it there, when, at the end of the day, it makes zero difference to the science produced .. whether one adopts that Realist belief, or not?

 

[Ana the Ist]

What you think about that .. doesn't influence the testing.
Get with the test.

Test what?

I'd have to assume there is indeed something to test.

Hilarious!
I couldn't care less for your truisms and aphorisms.
Give me your operational definition.

If my understanding of a word is outside the dictionary....either I've chosen the wrong word or my understanding has altered in some way, and I promise, I'll make it clear. It won't be a worse understanding of the word that communicates less meaning and loses pragmatic utility.

As for my operational definition, see the link in the last post.

I don't .. It works .. Its useful.

Useful for what?

Semantic meanings conveyed in language. Meanings expose evidence of the minds using them.

Right...no kidding. No concern for postmodernist labels? Sure.

What do you think your glib worthless definitions you use say about you? That you're trying to manipulate others? Or that you prefer to not be understood?

Agreed .. which is why its not a belief that's being tested using the well published, widely taught scientific method.

I don't think you know the scientific method.

I'm not familiar with that case .. and I'm not withholding any test results .. I demonstrate the SM method and show everyone the resutls of these MDR (semantic) tests in this forum .. but one has to actually look to see the evidence of that.

I don't see how you could ...but feel free.

I'm not getting through to you .. The hard part is disinguishing any (relevant) beliefs in the first place.

Relevant in what way?

That's why the definition of 'what a belief is', which I provided, is an operational definition, ie: looks to see if some claim doesn't follow from objective tests and/or is not constrained by the rules of logic.

That's at least coherent but less useful....I have no idea how you imagine you'll approach objective tests without first adopting an assumption of an objective reality.

Anyone can check to do that, before posting a bold claim. If they have made a mistake, it'll show up.

Sure sure...you can logic your way to anything....no paradoxes or problems ever occur there.

I don't know if that's a problem for you or not. So I'll ask: Is it?

No...by all means....go ahead. I'll honestly admit to any views I don't have at least a passing familiarity with.

Show me:

I don't know how we could possibly test that. I don't think people performing rain dances are clear about the windows of time in which the expect rain to occur before the dance has failed. I'm pretty sure they aren't causing them though.

Anyone can do science

Oh ok. Well....I don't know if I'd call solo science "science" since it seems unlikely you would be able to remove your own cognitive biases.

This is you demonstrating a lack of understanding of the scientific method.

Your emotional disappointment is indicative of your belief-based mode of assessment.

I thought you were suggesting you had a degree in a hard science. I'm now thinking that I was correct and you aren't a scientist.

Amazing how I got there without the power of your mind, isn't it?

I'm thus not particularly concerned with the expectation you formed prior to that assessment.

Right.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Hmm .. like all philosophical definitions I've seen about philosophical positions, they deliberately deny displays of human behaviours clearly visible across the population of thinking humans.

Do you see what I'm on about with how the MDR hypothesis avoids that very aspect? This is why its not a purely philosophical stance .. its science ... and not philosophy. I might agree that it looks like a mish-mash of a whole bunch of philosophy, some psychology and objective testing .. but science has always grabbed all sorts of ideas with the aim of making them useful. I'm not denying Realism may very well be one of those ideas. Its certainly extremely common in scientific thinking but that doesn't mean its the only way to approach science or is a fundamental bedrock of science. The MDR hypothesis represents another such approach .. and it sticks to the scientific method and operational definitions, as well as a typical Realist scientific practioner would should.

Using the MDR viewpoint provides us with a slightly different perspective on science .. and it infers some surprising conclusions which make us think twice about ideas like: some true mind independent reality existing .. and produces questions like: Why is it there, when, at the end of the day, it makes zero difference to the science produced .. whether one adopts that Realist belief, or not?

Ok....so I don't want to be mean to cruel or anything but this is starting to look like a manic episode or ideological capture. I'm not sure which.

I can literally use deductive logic to show that your "operational definition" of belief is less useful than the standard dictionary definition. By the very claims of this near mish mash of nonsense....you should therefore drop your "operational definition" and adopt the standard dictionary definition.

Right? Here we go...

Let's look at that dictionary definition...

belief

1. the feeling of being certain that something exists or is true: 2. something…

dictionary.cambridge.org

You'll want to look at the second definition, feel free to hit the link for "believe" and look at the examples for context.

This definition not only includes your "operational definition" but also every other type of belief someone might have! Amazing! It's a nearly infinitely larger set of beliefs than the definition you're proposing. If you want me to adopt your definition....I'd need a whole new noun and verb for beliefs that fall outside your definitional set.

What's the use of words? Obviously, the communication of meaning (this is why postmodernists end up failing) and the dictionary definition has far more meaning since it inherently describes a much larger categorical set than your definitional subset with less meaning.

Now, according to MDR you should drop your operational definition because it's inherently less useful by basic deductive logic. I can literally see it's lack of utility and needless complications.

After all....why in the world would I need to try and run every single belief I come across through some logical or scientific filter? That doesn't make any sense.

If I ask you what you had for breakfast....and you reply steak and eggs...I know that you believe it's true that you had steak and eggs for breakfast and furthermore, you probably believe steak and eggs is indeed a breakfast meal.

Can you imagine how wildly stupid it would be for me to reject that because you have no way of running that belief through the scientific method or some logical filter? If you were a compulsive liar or something I might be inclined to not believe you.

What's going on? Honestly. Have you ever been diagnosed for anything? I mean that with nothing but concern and sympathy. You made it this far in the post...answer a few questions for me...

1. On a scale of 1-5 with 1 being so low you're at the end of your rope 3 being ok and 5 being the best you've ever felt....do a little gut check...and honestly tell me how you feel?

2. How long have you been feeling this way?

3. How long have you been hyperfixated on MDR and inventing your own definitions for the English language?

 

[SelfSim]

Ok....so I don't want to be mean to cruel or anything but this is starting to look like a manic episode or ideological capture. I'm not sure which.

I can literally use deductive logic to show that your "operational definition" of belief is less useful than the standard dictionary definition. By the very claims of this near mish mash of nonsense....you should therefore drop your "operational definition" and adopt the standard dictionary definition.

Right? Here we go...

Let's look at that dictionary definition...

belief

1. the feeling of being certain that something exists or is true: 2. something…

dictionary.cambridge.org

You'll want to look at the second definition, feel free to hit the link for "believe" and look at the examples for context.

This definition not only includes your "operational definition" but also every other type of belief someone might have! Amazing! It's a nearly infinitely larger set of beliefs than the definition you're proposing. If you want me to adopt your definition....I'd need a whole new noun and verb for beliefs that fall outside your definitional set.

What's the use of words? Obviously, the communication of meaning (this is why postmodernists end up failing) and the dictionary definition has far more meaning since it inherently describes a much larger categorical set than your definitional subset with less meaning.

Now, according to MDR you should drop your operational definition because it's inherently less useful by basic deductive logic. I can literally see it's lack of utility and needless complications.

After all....why in the world would I need to try and run every single belief I come across through some logical or scientific filter? That doesn't make any sense.

If I ask you what you had for breakfast....and you reply steak and eggs...I know that you believe it's true that you had steak and eggs for breakfast and furthermore, you probably believe steak and eggs is indeed a breakfast meal.

Can you imagine how wildly stupid it would be for me to reject that because you have no way of running that belief through the scientific method or some logical filter? If you were a compulsive liar or something I might be inclined to not believe you.

What's going on? Honestly. Have you ever been diagnosed for anything? I mean that with nothing but concern and sympathy. You made it this far in the post...answer a few questions for me...

1. On a scale of 1-5 with 1 being so low you're at the end of your rope 3 being ok and 5 being the best you've ever felt....do a little gut check...and honestly tell me how you feel?

2. How long have you been feeling this way?

3. How long have you been hyperfixated on MDR and inventing your own definitions for the English language?

What does any of that tripe (and near ad-hom) have to do with the scope of the OP or the MDR Hypothesis, which does address the concerns of the poster's OP and its scope?

Can't you stick with the topic at hand?

I'll repost the MDR Hypothesis, seeing as you demonstrate that you are incapable of addressing it, and the OP topic.

I'm outta here until you can calm down and get yourself focused.

The Mind Dependent Reality (MDR) Hypothesis:

1) Scientific thinking does not rest on personal opinions. Science really couldn't work that way .. it has to always be based on what can be objectively demonstrated, or else it ceases to be science, and starts to be something very different from science, and;

2) Whenever we see someone invoking a notion of "reality" (or "exists") in the process of doing scientific thinking, they can be observed to be using the notion in a way that demonstrably depends on their mind, and would be done very differently by a very different mind.

The purpose of these observations, among other things, is to show that:

1) the widespread idea that science actually uses a notion of mind-independent reality is dead flat wrong, and;
2) at times, a notion that science accesses a mind-independent type of reality, can actually be a barrier to scientific progress, as has happened many times in the history of science.

Finally, it is worth noting what the MDR perspective is not saying:

1) no claim is made that reality is "only in the mind", or that mind-dependent reality "is what reality actually is". Instead, the point is that the word "reality" means different things in different contexts, and in science, it means how our minds make sense of objective perceptions.

2) it is clear that most scientific models do not explicitly include our minds in the model. This is a standard type of idealization, constantly used in science, and is totally different from claiming that a model that does not explicitly include a role of the mind, does not require a role of the mind to interpret and use that model.

Beliefs can be detected by scientific thinker by applying the following distinction of 'a belief':
'Any notion held as being true out of preference, that does not follow from objective tests, and is not beholden to the rules of logic'.

 

[J_B_]

belief

1. the feeling of being certain that something exists or is true: 2. something…

dictionary.cambridge.org

You'll want to look at the second definition, feel free to hit the link for "believe" and look at the examples for context.

My apologies for injecting myself into the conversation. If I'm being a nuisance, I'll drop out.

I agree with your approach. Using dictionary definitions are the better approach to contentious discussions. However, not all dictionaries are the same, and I'm not fond of the one you chose. Def #2 just makes a circular reference from "belief" to "believe", and the definition of "believe" makes a similar (though somewhat more tautological) circular reference from "believe" to "think".

I would prefer this one: Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words (Def #2). It makes reference to confidence, and one can then ask why someone has confidence, i.e. What is the source of their belief? ... which is, somewhat, the question you were heading toward in your post.

 

[SelfSim]

I would prefer this one: Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words (Def #2). It makes reference to confidence, and one can then ask why someone has confidence, i.e. What is the source of their belief? ... which is, somewhat, the question you were heading toward in your post.

.. and when one asks (of that hypothetical person): 'Why do you have confidence, i.e. What is the source of your belief?', their reasons will appear. 'Reasons' require an active thinking mind, which then adds to the abundance of evidence supporting the mind dependency of that belief, (with no evidence of anything mind independent in the belief at all) .. all of which, is precisely what the MDR Hypothesis tentatively asserts. Another test passed, with affirming evidence!

The issue at stake on the dictionary vs operational definition choice, is the separate respective purposes . aka: philosophical, (addressing all broader contexts), or those contexts addressable by science.
Science adds meaning to its 'truth' by testing, regardless of prior definitions existing or not, science is a process of creating and modifying definitions to optimise their utility value, against a backdrop of changing contexts. There is a commonly made, (errored), accusation that anything a scientists claims, 'is true by definition'. Truth and definitions come together, out of a process, neither precedes the other, in science. They are regarded (in science) contextually and provisionally, (of which there is a demonstrable track-record of changes to them with new evidence).
One might then ask how can 'what something is' ,(eg: say, 'an electron'), change as dramatically as it has over, say, the last century, if what 'an electron is', is a truly mind independent thing? One has to actually look at what has happened there, to understand why dictionary definitions asserting 'existence and truth' on a circular basis, are insufficient for scientific study.

 

[Ana the Ist]

My apologies for injecting myself into the conversation. If I'm being a nuisance, I'll drop out.

You aren't.

I agree with your approach. Using dictionary definitions are the better approach to contentious discussions. However, not all dictionaries are the same, and I'm not fond of the one you chose. Def #2 just makes a circular reference from "belief" to "believe", and the definition of "believe" makes a similar (though somewhat more tautological) circular reference from "believe" to "think".

If there's one you prefer...I'm more than willing to consider it.

However, I disagree with your objection...the noun referring to the verb is extremely common in English. A belief is what we believe much in the same way that a runner is someone who runs. Obviously, these are different categories of nouns and verbs...and that's why one relates to thinking....the other to a physical person in motion.

I would prefer this one: Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words (Def #2). It makes reference to confidence, and one can then ask why someone has confidence, i.e. What is the source of their belief? ... which is, somewhat, the question you were heading toward in your post.

I am fine with that dictionary definition. I agree that we wouldn't probably call your description of the breakfast you ate today a belief....but we might if you were trying to recall what you ate Monday 3 weeks ago....right? You might say "I think" or "I believe" but simply because of the lack of confidence. Anything you know to a certainty....doesn't seem like a belief.

 

[Ana the Ist]

What does any of that tripe (and near ad-hom) have to do with the scope of the OP or the MDR

It has more to do with your extreme confidence in your claims about a viewpoint tied to the scientific method and logic despite demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of the scientific method and logic.

I'm just sincerely trying to help. I hope you'll understand that I'm not going to try to teach you the scientific method or inductive or deductive logic or anything so time consuming.

Can't you stick with the topic at hand?

This is the topic. I can't talk about the scientific method or logic with someone who continually demonstrates a lack of understanding of both.

I'll repost the MDR Hypothesis,

No need.

The Mind Dependent Reality (MDR) Hypothesis:

1) Scientific thinking does not rest on personal opinions. Science really couldn't work that way .. it has to always be based on what can be objectively demonstrated, or else it ceases to be science, and starts to be something very different from science, and;

2) Whenever we see someone invoking a notion of "reality" (or "exists") in the process of doing scientific thinking, they can be observed to be using the notion in a way that demonstrably depends on their mind, and would be done very differently by a very different mind.

What you had for breakfast would be extremely difficult to prove through either the scientific method or formal logic....yet the MDR hypothesis seems to think I should dicard all such things that fall into this category as not a part of reality.

This is sheer stupidity.

The purpose of these observations, among other things, is to show that:

1) the widespread idea that science actually uses a notion of mind-independent reality is dead flat wrong, and;

This is you failing to grasp the scientific method.

2) at times, a notion that science accesses a mind-independent type of reality, can actually be a barrier to scientific progress, as has happened many times in the history of science.

What are the times when we are doing science without any assumptions of an objective reality independent of ourselves?

 

[Ana the Ist]

.. and when one asks (of that hypothetical person): 'Why do you have confidence, i.e. What is the source of your belief?', their reasons will appear. 'Reasons' require an active thinking mind, which then adds to the abundance of evidence supporting the mind dependency of that belief, (with no evidence of anything mind independent in the belief at all) .. all of which, is precisely what the MDR Hypothesis tentatively asserts. Another test passed, with affirming evidence!

Mania.

The issue at stake on the dictionary vs operational definition choice, is the separate respective purposes . aka: philosophical, (addressing all broader contexts), or those contexts addressable by science.
Science adds meaning to its 'truth' by testing, regardless of prior definitions existing or not, science is a process of creating and modifying definitions to optimise their utility value, against a backdrop of changing contexts. There is a commonly made, (errored), accusation that anything a scientists claims, 'is true by definition'. Truth and definitions come together, out of a process, neither precedes the other, in science. They are regarded (in science) contextually and provisionally, (of which there is a demonstrable track-record of changes to them with new evidence).

The updating of science upon acceptance of new proven evidence is part of the scientific method.

One might then ask how can 'what something is' ,(eg: say, 'an electron'), change as dramatically as it has over, say, the last century, if what 'an electron is', is a truly mind independent thing?

Are those "dramatic" changes to you?

Do you think electrons don't exist independently of your mind?

What are you saying? That our understanding of electrons is now more accurate? Less accurate? Has gotten better or worse over time? Do you believe anyone claims electrons don't exist independent of our minds?

 

[J_B_]

I am fine with that dictionary definition. I agree that we wouldn't probably call your description of the breakfast you ate today a belief....but we might if you were trying to recall what you ate Monday 3 weeks ago....right? You might say "I think" or "I believe" but simply because of the lack of confidence. Anything you know to a certainty....doesn't seem like a belief.

Yes. I would probably switch to saying "I know" rather than "I think" in cases where my certainty is high. But in this forum such wording is typically met with a challenge that we can't know anything. In my opinion such challenges are often intentional ignorance. Language of that type is not precise in the same way numbers are. One can't apply a numerical level of confidence such that "I know" always equates to a statement of 100% confidence.

Also, Christians statements such as "I believe" or "I have faith" are often nuanced in a way that is different from similar statements about secular topics. Over time I've come to exclude religious language from discussions with non-believers in the same way I exclude technical jargon when not speaking with engineers. That is, unless we've reached an appropriate level of understanding between us.

 

[J_B_]

One might then ask how can 'what something is' ,(eg: say, 'an electron'), change as dramatically as it has over, say, the last century, if what 'an electron is', is a truly mind independent thing? One has to actually look at what has happened there, to understand why dictionary definitions asserting 'existence and truth' on a circular basis, are insufficient for scientific study.

I haven't read the thread in enough depth to know what this MDR thing is, whether it is your idea or something you picked up along the way. Labeling things is a curious trait of humans. Among the goals of labeling is to distinguish, to understand, to control, and to own a thing.

Whatever the purposes of science, in its pure form it never claims to be without error - to have 100% understanding. Of course, there are examples of particular scientists failing to live up to that pure ideal. But the errors of one scientist are not considered a flaw that permeates all science. Just as the destruction of one tornado is not an indictment of all the air we breathe. So yes, there is a sense in which all of science is dependent upon the human mind. Science is one method for interpreting the senses. Sometimes scientists get it wrong. Sometimes philosophies get in the way. Sometimes scientists are frustratingly stubborn about addressing such things. But you seem to be dangerously close to saying that what science studies involves nothing external to the human mind. That I can't agree with.

I've even had my own questions about the veracity of scientific concepts of electrons. However, until I finish building my own collider in my basement, there isn't much I can do about it.

It seems many Christian traditions have trouble dealing with the issue of error. It has crept from the position that God does not err to the idea that the Church does not err to the idea that individual Christians do not err (at least as far as their religious beliefs and practices go). Hence accusations of dogma. Given Lutherans were born from a position of accusing the Church of error, maybe we've had more experience in getting comfortable with that idea. Not that all lay Lutherans are good at articulating it, but the Lutheran Church will grudgingly admit course corrections are needed from time to time. The latest big one for us was the painful experience of Seminex.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Yes. I would probably switch to saying "I know" rather than "I think" in cases where my certainty is high. But in this forum such wording is typically met with a challenge that we can't know anything.

Sure...but as long as the meaning is understood....I don't think you need 100% certainty to say "I know".

In my opinion such challenges are often intentional ignorance. Language of that type is not precise in the same way numbers are.

Numbers are just a type of language. We use them to describe measurable quantities.

Also, Christians statements such as "I believe" or "I have faith" are often nuanced in a way that is different from similar statements about secular topics.

I know.

Over time I've come to exclude religious language from discussions with non-believers in the same way I exclude technical jargon when not speaking with engineers. That is, unless we've reached an appropriate level of understanding between us.

Fair enough.

 

[J_B_]

Numbers are just a type of language. We use them to describe measurable quantities.

Maybe. Kinda. But a language so unlike English, etc. that I'm not sure how useful the comparison is.

 

[SelfSim]

... But you seem to be dangerously close to saying that what science studies involves nothing external to the human mind. That I can't agree with.

More like what I've said is nothing about 'science studying things external to the mind' (ie: indepedently from the mind) because that notion never appears in scientific models.
I'm not the one asserting 'things existing external', (where I take 'external' there, as meaning independent from our minds) from our sensory/perceptional mind models .. but others are .. so let them demonstrate how they can possibly do that, without using a human mind.
Otherwise its all just one big belief, (where the meaning of 'belief' there, I gave before).

I've even had my own questions about the veracity of scientific concepts of electrons. However, until I finish building my own collider in my basement, there isn't much I can do about it.

So what are you going to do then?
Science's concepts of 'what an electron is', has produced the technologies you're using right now to communicate in this medium. Isn't that sufficient for you to accept the veracity of of those concepts, albeit, with some healthy (or skeptical) reservations?

It seems many Christian traditions have trouble dealing with the issue of error. It has crept from the position that God does not err to the idea that the Church does not err to the idea that individual Christians do not err (at least as far as their religious beliefs and practices go). Hence accusations of dogma. Given Lutherans were born from a position of accusing the Church of error, maybe we've had more experience in getting comfortable with that idea. Not that all lay Lutherans are good at articulating it, but the Lutheran Church will grudgingly admit course corrections are needed from time to time. The latest big one for us was the painful experience of Seminex.

I feel for Christian believers then.
What perplexes me in this thread, is the aggression against a notion that actually ends up supporting science in a big way, whilst distinguishing (Christian) beliefs from science, in a way that doesn't interfere with Christian believers and scientists working towards resolving their own respective issues, (and in Christians' case: perhaps in a way as you describe above?).

I was not expecting such aggression from a non-believer, however!?

 

[SelfSim]

Speaking of electrons, the meaning of electrons is not taken as being a 'truth by definition' in science.
For example, if I defined an 'electron' to be a particle with a radius of 1 cm and a mass of 1 gram, that definition would not be 'true', because the particle I am defining that way, would not help me make sense of any of my perceptions. This is 'truth' in science, and that also includes the truth in the meaning of what science is.

So it would be accurate to say the definition of science, and the truth of what science is, emerged together over a several-millennium trial-and-error process of finding out what works.

One point to make here is that, regardless of any prior definitions existing or not, (such as for an electron), science is a process of creating and modifying definitions until they serve us. There is a commonly made error by anyone claiming that anything I'm saying is 'true by definition', (should that arise). Truth and definitions come together, out of a process, neither precedes the other in science. The question is, is there anyone else out there who recognises that?

 

[J_B_]

(where I take 'external' there, as meaning independent from our minds)

Taking it that way changes what I was saying.

Science's concepts of 'what an electron is', has produced the technologies you're using right now to communicate in this medium. Isn't that sufficient for you to accept the veracity of of those concepts, albeit, with some healthy (or skeptical) reservations?

My thoughts on possible changes to the electron model would have no impact on the engineering of electronic equipment.

I was not expecting such aggression from a non-believer, however!?

I don't know who this refers to.

 

[SelfSim]

Taking it that way changes what I was saying.

Ok fair enough .. (as long as we recognize that 'external' is already a mind-dependent construct). I'd agree that external has a different meaning from independent there. A mind can conceive of something 'external' to the mind, but that doesn't make it mind independent, since the mind is the source of the me/not me dichotomy. There's plenty of evidence that this dichotomy is at least partially, if not totally, artificial, yet it is a very useful construct all the same. So I would go so far as to say most people include in their model/picture of reality, the idea that there is an 'internal' reality and an 'external' reality, (myself included), even though the laws of physics make no such explicit distinction, since in a 'real' sense, all electrons, for example, are indistinguishable and do not have separate identities such that one can be said to be 'inside' you and another 'outside' you. All the same, we conceive of them that way .. so which is the 'real' electron there?
...

I don't know who this refers to.

Fair enough .. its of no significance and to further clarify: I wasn't referring to yourself.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Maybe. Kinda. But a language so unlike English, etc. that I'm not sure how useful the comparison is.

That's a fair point....but it doesn't describe everything.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Speaking of electrons, the meaning of electrons

What in the ...

The meaning of electrons? Do you mean the definition of electrons?

Science doesn't ascribe meaning.

For example, if I defined an 'electron'

I'm pretty sure we already established I don't care about your definitions. Demanding people relearn an entire language just to speak to you is bonkers.

So it would be accurate to say the definition of science, and the truth of what science is, emerged together over a several-millennium

Do you think the scientific method has existed for millenia?

One point to make here is that, regardless of any prior definitions existing or not, (such as for an electron), science is a process of creating and modifying definitions until they serve us.

You don't do that though....because you aren't doing science.

There is a commonly made error by anyone claiming that anything I'm saying is 'true by definition', (should that arise).

Nobody said anything is true by definition. I simply pointed out the point of words in conveying meaning and how your personal and needless definitions didn't help that.