Elementary, my dear Watson...

[quatona]

I guess the case is pretty much solved.

Ok. Just one more point:

But if one does not know the difference in reliability between the processes?

On the one hand we can say science led him to true beliefs, but on the other we can say he was not able to distinguish true from false. So how could he know science to be true if the overall process of appraisal he used to form his beliefs as a complete individual was not that reliable, and in fact led him into error (believing false things like alchemy and for the sake of argument God, to be true) as well as success? He could be compared to a judge who not only believed qualified authority but unqualified 'authority' too. Would a judge who took to heart expert testimony from an astrologer as well as an astronomer be regarded as adequatelty qualified for the job?

There may be some misunderstanding of the scientific method. As far as I recall nowhere does it involve faith in the reliability of an individual scientist. Au contraire, it invites us to put his findings to scrutinity, to critically examine the method, the raw data, the conditions, the logic etc. etc.
So, with every hypothesis and research we have an armada of other scientist checking, double-checking and critically examining the viability before it possibly becomes a theory.

Thus, I think "science led him to true beliefs", "he knew science to be true", "he formed his beliefs" are completely misrepresenting the approach of science. Science doesn´t deal with beliefs, and a scientist merely believing something to be true (be it a hypothesis in his field or a metaphysical subject) doesn´t science make.
It´s more or less like with a calculation: We don´t have to rely on someone being able to do it right - and aren´t even asked to.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

That seems ok to me except the bit about beliefs. "Science" originally meant knowledge, and I imagine that people speak of it in that sense today. It would at least seem odd to me that there is for example the theory of evolution, which may be true, but it is not meant to be believed. The whole point of science for me is it is a technique for forming true beliefs, or knowledge, and therefore giving us a valid awareness of the world around us.

 

[variant]

Is the effect not dependent akin to cause? If the person does not think clearly in general, can there ever be clear understanding at the specific lebel even if the actual beliefs (in evolution, gravity etc) are true? Perhaps not.

To put it another way, could a madman, who believes he is Moses reincarnate, and that the ghost of Mary speaks to him daily, ever know very much more than what is plainly in front of his nose (if even that)?

It is an ad-hom falacy you are putting forward here.

I could argue against Heiddegers phenominology because he was a comitted Natzi but that is an entirely improper way to address an argument.

What Newton did in physics stands on it's own as an argument and not upon him as a person.

The reasoning itself is either solid or it isn't, and this is not dependant on wether the person in general is "good at reasoning".

 

[keith99]

Can we trust Newton since he did not leap miles above every single commonly held belief of his day?

His alchemy likely had far more useful results than any Chemistry the OP is capable of. His belief in God (which we actually are not privy to) is likely far more rational and considered than the beliefs held by the majority on this board.

My bet is there are few here who can repreat the mathematics he created and none here who could derive on their own even a small part of them.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

One of the reasons I brought up the topic is becauser i practice many faith prayers. Buddhist, Catholic, Hindu, Muslim. As a reslult my world view is not that logically coherent, because I have not ordered the elements into one logical whole. So not only do I (maybe, it is arguable) suffer the defects of ordinary faith, but also added "confusion" on top of that. So I am wondering with such a lax view, where reality could be creation or a karmic dream, and I entertain both ideas, how well can I know the ordinary truths of physical science which seem to presuppose a particular metaphysics? So, if my metaphysics is unstable, can I have stable knowledge?

 

[The Paul]

Science doesn't presuppose any particular metaphysics, it observes them.

An argument could be made against the idea that inductive reasoning is valid, but it's that's pointless, as humans generally don't have the mental ability to not trust it.

Reality behaves consistently. Experiments fall out the same way regardless of the beliefs of the person performing them. Except when they don't, and we discover some unaccounted for physical variable in the conditions.

The world exists and it has properties. There seems to be a tendency for high concept philosophy to obscure even that simple fact, rather than to enlighten.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

No, I mean like, I assume morality is something real. Even though I know I can't prove it I am committed to saying evil is evil and good is good and that we should act to prevent the former and promote the latter.

I think that ethics is grounded in the experience of value. Just because it cannot be measured with a ruler does not mean ift does not exist. Bu t I suppose that there are some beliefs which are not scientifically that well developed (like ethics or axiology) which we cannot ignore, and must therefor believe in either directly or thought implication of our behavior.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Science doesn't presuppose any particular metaphysics, it observes them.

If you are observing something known to exist, you must have a metaphysics which claims it exists with good warrant. For me the ground of metaphsyics and epistemology is a knowing self awareness. It is both a metaphysical object (the self) and the epistemological moment (knowing self) at the same time. It is a perceptual act of knowing knowing knowing. That comes as a prelude to science, not as a result of it.

 

[variant]

One of the reasons I brought up the topic is becauser i practice many faith prayers. Buddhist, Catholic, Hindu, Muslim. As a reslult my world view is not that logically coherent, because I have not ordered the elements into one logical whole. So not only do I (maybe, it is arguable) suffer the defects of ordinary faith, but also added "confusion" on top of that. So I am wondering with such a lax view, where reality could be creation or a karmic dream, and I entertain both ideas, how well can I know the ordinary truths of physical science which seem to presuppose a particular metaphysics? So, if my metaphysics is unstable, can I have stable knowledge?

You're the one who has a problem with yourself being inconsistent, not reality.

The truths you have arrived at through accurate observation and sound reasoning are true no matter what other nonsense you believe.

If you are worried about inconsistency in your metaphysics then stop being inconsistent. It’s really that simple.

When you follow the last line of advice though, don’t be surprised if you need to disregard religious thinking. I have observed that it is difficult to hold religious opinions and live up to any consistent view of the world.

 

[variant]

If you are observing something known to exist, you must have a metaphysics which claims it exists with good warrant. For me the ground of metaphsyics and epistemology is a knowing self awareness. It is both a metaphysical object (the self) and the epistemological moment (knowing self) at the same time. It is a perceptual act of knowing knowing knowing. That comes as a prelude to science, not as a result of it.

I think your metaphysics are flawed because complete self awareness escapes even the best of us (and may be impossible).

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I think your metaphysics are flawed because complete self awareness escapes even the best of us (and may be impossible).

I am not talking specifically about self awareness but knowledge. What the good of Descarte's claiming "I think" if he does not know "I think" to be true.


A metaphysics which does not involve the existence of knowledge must be one we do not know to be accurate or true. What is the good of saying "X exists but I do not know it, no one knows it because we only claim X and not K"?


So metaphysics must involve the existence of knowledge above all else. And epistemologically the knowing must be known in order for a metaphysics to knowingly include it. Otherwise we have a entity (knowledge) which itself is not known, but that would not do. It would be subject to the same critique as "I think". Why claim it if you do not know it? That would be an agnostic metaphysics, claiming knowledge exists buit not knowing it, perhaps a form of skepticism anpit ones own beliefs.

So at the heard of metaphysics and epistemology comes knowing knowing knowing.

I read somewhere that metaphysics and epistemology are interdependent, like a yin-yang spiral. For me to reliably claim existence you must have knowledge of the existent, and to claim knowledge you must have the existence of the knowledge and know of it.

 

[variant]

I am not talking specifically about self awareness but knowledge. What the good of Descarte's claiming "I think" if he does not know "I think" to be true.

The point of Descarte's rant is that the counter claim is absurd.

He is correct on this point.

A metaphysics which does not involve the existence of knowledge must be one we do not know to be accurate or true. What is the good of saying "X exists but I do not know it, no one knows it because we only claim X and not K"?

So metaphysics must involve the existence of knowledge above all else. And epistemologically the knowing must be known in order for a metaphysics to knowingly include it. Otherwise we have a entity (knowledge) which itself is not known, but that would not do. It would be subject to the same critique as "I think". Why claim it if you do not know it? That would be an agnostic metaphysics, claiming knowledge exists buit not knowing it, perhaps a form of skepticism anpit ones own beliefs.

So at the heard of metaphysics and epistemology comes knowing knowing knowing.

You always overcomplicate things to the point that I am not convinced you ever really appreciate the simplicity of the universe.

Truth and accuracy are essentially the meat of knowledge, but I have never found much meat in the philosophy that over-thinks this.

Truth and accuracy are essentially the same concepts as consistancy and predictability. Statements are true to the extent that they accurately predict the things they predict, and knowledge exists so far as it allows us to accurately predict the future and view the world consistently.

I read somewhere that metaphysics and epistemology are interdependent, like a yin-yang spiral. For me to reliably claim existence you must have knowledge of the existent, and to claim knowledge you must have the existence of the knowledge and know of it.

For me to claim knowledge you have to be able to accurately predict things consistently.

This is why you're getting confused with Newton even when the systems of prediction he had given to us were remarkably good and accurate predictions both hallmarks of consistently and repeatability.

If you do this, it doesn’t matter what sort of nuttier you are, the claim you made is true. Self awareness is a less important subject than merely "awareness".

Science doesn’t have it's own complete metaphysics it has it's own epistemology (ideas about knowledge and truth). They just happen to be so inherently useful they plow all this mindless mish mash off ideological battle field.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

The point of Descarte's rant is that the counter claim is absurd.

He is correct on this point.

I probably agree. But surely he must therefore know "I think" is true. So knowledge is necessary in metaphysics.

You always overcomplicate things to the point that I am not convinced you ever really appreciate the simplicity of the universe.

What universe. Either you know it ir you do not.

Truth and accuracy are essentially the meat of knowledge, but I have never found much meat in the philosophy that over-thinks this.

There is true belief but also the element of justification in knowledge.

Truth and accuracy are essentially the same concepts as consistancy and predictability. Statements are true to the extent that they accurately predict the things they predict, and knowledge exists so far as it allows us to accurately predict the future and view the world consistently.

I think that accurate predictions may be coincidental. For instance I have a broken calculator that only displays the number "1". That will how many Suns there are to an earthling, but I don't think just random dependence on a broken calculator would could as reasonable justification for that belief.

For me to claim knowledge you have to be able to accurately predict things consistently.

Or postdict? And then what about maths. Is knowing 1+1=2 a prediction?

This is why you're getting confused with Newton even when the systems of prediction he had given to us were remarkably good and accurate predictions both hallmarks of consistently and repeatability.

Ah I see. Yes I agree that Newton had knowledge. I was more diverging into my own metaphysics rather than continuing with the old debate.

If you do this, it doesn’t matter what sort of nuttier you are, the claim you made is true. Self awareness is a less important subject than merely "awareness".

Yes I agree, given a certain context (rather than absolutely).

Science doesn’t have it's own complete metaphysics it has it's own epistemology (ideas about knowledge and truth). They just happen to be so inherently useful they plow all this mindless mish mash off ideological battle field.

But if science has knowldge it implies that certain thinks, truths, knowings exist. Which is a metaphysical claim.

 

[variant]

I probably agree. But surely he must therefore know "I think" is true. So knowledge is necessary in metaphysics.

And knowledge is a descriptive byproduct of consistency and predictability.

Descartes posited that he could not remove himself from the equation and still claim to have a rational system.

What universe. Either you know it ir you do not.

Not really, the idea of a Universe is also a prediction overlaid onto our experience with a specific phenomena.

There is true belief but also the element of justification in knowledge.

Justification is how we show that beliefs have consistency and predict things appropriately.

I think that accurate predictions may be coincidental. For instance I have a broken calculator that only displays the number "1". That will how many Suns there are to an earthling, but I don't think just random dependence on a broken calculator would could as reasonable justification for that belief.

"broken" things are "broken" because they do not do a good job of accurately predicting or describing in a consistent manner.

Merely contrasting a broken calculator with a fully functional one gives us a good idea about which is more helpful in attaining knowledge, and which better helps us describe our universe.

Coincidences happen to be sure, but if you have not penetrated the root of the issue something will usually happen to throw your improper predictive system out of whack.

Or postdict? And then what about maths. Is knowing 1+1=2 a prediction?

All rationality is empirical in my opinion.

1+1=2 is a description based upon how we perceive quantity and how varying quantities of similar things interact. Math is an abstraction from reality, an idea. We knew 1+1=2 before we invented math to describe it. Math just used what we described and how we described it to allow us to discover other relationships between quantity that we hadn’t observed yet.

Model A=A0ekt helps us "model" radioactive decay for instance.

But if science has knowldge it implies that certain thinks, truths, knowings exist. Which is a metaphysical claim.

All epistemological claims are metaphysical claims, on this we agree.

I am saying science doesn’t have a rote metaphysics, that you learn first than shape your scientific pursuits but rather shapes one (metaphysics itself) via the process of pure epistemological juggernaughtery. What it has is a theory for a formula of epistemological success.

Science has a better claim than saying it has knowledge it DEMONSTRATES that it does.