When does proving one's truth claims come to an end?

[Tassman]

And yes, to address the original point, to ignore a sizable minority of theists is simplistic.

That's not the part I'm contesting. I'm questioning the claim that it can explain or potentially explain "[B]everything about human beings."

Given that there is absolutely no verifiable evidence for anything about living organisms (including Homo sapiens) other than that which evolved via Natural Selection, it is a reasonable claim to make.

A foundational principle of the sciences is that there are various compatible levels of description for reality. If any one level could argubaly hold primacy, it would be physics.

The is the developing of hypotheses, deriving predictions from them and testing them via experiments or empirical observations. Conversely, your argument merely claimed observational knowledge based upon subjective experiences and opinions, which cannot be quantitatively or qualitatively examined via empirical testing.

As for "subjective claims" none are more insidious than the ones smuggled in under the "cloak of 'scientific' objectivity" as in your "genetic algorithm" claim.

No. Explicit knowing requires implicit knowing.

No, requires objective verifiable evidence based upon scientific methodology otherwise is no more than speculation.

If I told you that the secret of the universe is popcorn, would you feel pretty confident that I was wrong? Does that confidence mean that YOU know what the secret is?

My confidence that you were wrong would be based on the total lack of empirical evidence to support such a claim.

I'm not talking about assuming anything. I'm talking about the wonder itself. Most atheists I've encountered think it's illegitimate or even silly to wonder about it. People by nature want to know why, to know the reason for things, to make as much sense out of the totality of experience as possible. Why should this possibility be foreclosed on?

You can wonder about such things all you want but it remains purely speculative unless it can be supported by objective, testable evidence.

[Jim B.]

The “original point” is all I’m interested in. And your “sizable minority” is presumably as opposed to the majority of theists who believe that their deity has ultimate authority regarding morality and ethics.

But to ignore a sizable minority is to reduce a phenomenon, like saying that the human race is right-handed. That was MY point.

Given that there is absolutely no verifiable evidence for anything about living organisms (including Homo sapiens) other than that which evolved via Natural Selection, it is a reasonable claim to make.

There is much verifiable evidence for epigenetic/environmental influence and for cultural transmission that is not reducible to the laws, concepts or principles of other scientific disciplines.

https://www.the-scientist.com/readin...ehavior--66318

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_versus_nurture

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com...s-not-physics/

The “foundational principle of the sciences” is the developing of hypotheses, deriving predictions from them and testing them via experiments or empirical observations. Conversely, your argument merely claimed observational knowledge based upon subjective experiences and opinions, which cannot be quantitatively or qualitatively examined via empirical testing.

I wrote "A foundational principle" not "THE foundational principle". My point was that each scientific discipline investigates a distinct descriptive level with its own laws, principles and concepts. So to assume that a phenomenon as complex as a human being can be "fully explained" by means of one algorithmic tool within the domain of one discipline flies in the face of verifiable empirical evidence of all of the sciences.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductionism

From the "Science" section of the above article:

Others argue that inappropriate use of reductionism limits our understanding of complex systems. In particular, ecologist Robert Ulanowicz says that science must develop techniques to study ways in which larger scales of organization influence smaller ones, and also ways in which feedback loops create structure at a given level, independently of details at a lower level of organization. He advocates (and uses) information theory as a framework to study propensities in natural systems.[23] Ulanowicz attributes these criticisms of reductionism to the philosopher Karl Popper and biologist Robert Rosen.[24]

Stuart Kauffman has argued that complex systems theory and phenomena such as emergence pose limits to reductionism.[25] Emergence is especially relevant when systems exhibit historicity.[26] Emergence is strongly related to nonlinearity.[27] The limits of the application of reductionism are claimed to be especially evident at levels of organization with greater complexity, including living cells,[28] neural networks, ecosystems, society, and other systems formed from assemblies of large numbers of diverse components linked by multiple feedback loops.[28][29]

Nobel laureate Philip Warren Anderson used the idea that symmetry breaking is an example of an emergent phenomenon in his 1972 Science paper "More is different" to make an argument about the limitations of reductionism.[30] One observation he made was that the sciences can be arranged roughly in a linear hierarchy—particle physics, solid state physics, chemistry, molecular biology, cellular biology, physiology, psychology, social sciences—in that the elementary entities of one science obeys the principles of the science that precedes it in the hierarchy; yet this does not imply that one science is just an applied version of the science that precedes it. He writes that "At each stage, entirely new laws, concepts and generalizations are necessary, requiring inspiration and creativity to just as great a degree as in the previous one. Psychology is not applied biology nor is biology applied chemistry."

Disciplines such as cybernetics and systems theory imply non-reductionism, sometimes to the extent of explaining phenomena at a given level of hierarchy in terms of phenomena at a higher level, in a sense, the opposite of reductionism.[31]

Except the genetic algorithms in this instance are grounded in the concept of Darwin’s Theory of Natural Selection and as such based in biology, which can be empirically tested and verified.

As can epigenetic/environmental, stochastic, cultural and historical influences.

No, “explicit knowing” requires objective verifiable evidence based upon scientific methodology otherwise “implicit knowing” is no more than speculation.

Explicit knowing doesn't even begin to get off the ground without a foundation in implicit knowing. That's why AI has had such a hard time getting started. back in the '50's they assumed there'd be conscious robots in 20 years. AI researchers assumed that they could build thinking machines based wholly on explicit rules. They were completely wrong. We're not essentially symbol manipultors, although we're capable of computation. We deal in meanings.

My confidence that you were wrong would be based on the total lack of empirical evidence to support such a claim.

No, that's probably not why. It's the utter lack of plausibility to my answer. I can give you two answers to a question, both of which utterly lack any empirical evidence. But one can seem far more likely than the other.

You can wonder about such things all you want but it remains purely speculative unless it can be supported by objective, testable evidence.

But we're talking about a type of question where objective, testable evidence doesn't apply, remember? Not all of human thought must fit the same Procrustean Bed. Sometimes you can take off the empirical mental strait jacket and just allow yourself to wonder about things. That's how human knowledge grows. Physicists, including cosmologists, often speculate about things for which there could be no conceivable empirical test. Anyway, as I've said so many times, not all knowledge is empirical knowledge. To assume so is to have a very constricted, impoverished view of reality, IMO.

[Tassman]

But to ignore a sizable minority is to reduce a phenomenon, like saying that the human race is right-handed. That was MY point.

I wrote "A foundational principle" not "THE foundational principle". My point was that each scientific discipline investigates a distinct descriptive level with its own laws, principles and concepts. So to assume that a phenomenon as complex as a human being can be "fully explained" by means of one algorithmic tool within the domain of one discipline flies in the face of verifiable empirical evidence of all of the sciences.

A phenomenon as complex as a human being can be "fully explained" in principle by means of scientific methodology inasmuch as it falsifies theories and hypotheses concerning the nature of our physical existence. Philosophical argumentation is unable to do this.

As can epigenetic/environmental, stochastic, cultural and historical influences.

Explicit knowing doesn't even begin to get off the ground without a foundation in implicit knowing.

No, that's probably not why. It's the utter lack of plausibility to my answer. I can give you two answers to a question, both of which utterly lack any empirical evidence. But one can seem far more likely than the other.

But we're talking about a type of question where objective, testable evidence doesn't apply, remember?

And such knowledge cannot be considered anything other than subjective knowledge, remember?

Physicists, including cosmologists, often speculate about things for which there could be no conceivable empirical test.

Certainly, physicists and cosmologists speculate about things for which there is no known

Anyway, as I've said so many times, not all knowledge is empirical knowledge. To assume so is to have a very constricted, impoverished view of reality, IMO.

You may well consider such a view to be impoverished, but that is not to say it is wrong. Non-empirical knowledge cannot be considered decisive knowledge.

[shunyadragon]

I don't even know how to debate you. This is so confused. First of all, 'decisive' would mean that it's been 'decided'. It's not controversial. It's settled. So you say first that there are no decisive truths in terms of science. Then you say that there IS decisive evolving knowledge in terms of scientific methods. This is clear obfuscation. No one said that scientific truths do NOT evolve and could NOT conceivably be overturned and/or re-contextualized. But you're not saying that the fact that the earth revolves around the sun or that water is H2O are NOT 'decisive' scientific truths? And from the human perspective? Clearly science IS a human enterprise just as maths are, but they arguably can facilitate the discovery of 'extra-human truths,' within limits...

Once more, phenomenal truths are not logically entailed by physical truths. Physical correlation does not establish identity.
You clearly cannot or do not want to comprehend this statement.So let's just move on.







That would mean that God would deem the suffering necessary then, wouldn't it?







Again, I never mentioned theology. Why do you keep bringing that up?





I have no idea what this means.





I think you're confusing 'decisive' with 'ultimate' or 'definitive'. "Decisive" merely means it's been decided, i.e. "settled' or "non-controversial." It doesn't mean ultimate, definitive knowledge which is probably not available to human minds. The constraints and limits of Methodological Naturalism are the very thing that allows science the rigor to yield predictable verifiable evidence.





Variable as I said as far as non-moral factual belief. If you control for that variance, then the universality of core moral beliefs ( gratitude, non-harm, truthfulness, fairness, etc) is quite high. You also have to differentiate between morality understood descriptively and normatively. If you look at it only through the descriptive lens, then there cannot possibly be any decisive moral truths there.





Again, you're looking at it only descriptively so all you can ever see are diverse sociological and historical facts. That is the only lens through which you've decided it can possibly be viewed. I am suggesting that you try on a different lens. The normative lens.



Yes. Again, you're looking at it exclusively as a DESCRIPTIVE phenomenon. I'm saying that for an agent to CAUSE unnecessary suffering in a moral patient is wrong.





But not the only decisive knowledge full stop, because physical existence does not exhaust all of reality.



That is Popper's criterion of demarcation for science as opposed to pseudo-science, not as a criterion for all of knowledge proper. Even Popper would not accept such a restrictive criterion.




While you're waiting, you might work on your reading skills.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPqpmSWwuGk




In my experience, amidst all of your self- and mutual-congratulations, neither of you to date have ever fully grasped anything I have ever written on any of these threads.

Long wordy verbage, and still no 'decisive truths' presented on your part.

[seer]

Long wordy verbage, and still no 'decisive truths' presented on your part.

Isn't the law of non-contradiction a decisive truth? Is 2+2=4 a decisive truth?

[shunyadragon]

Isn't the law of non-contradiction a decisive truth? Is 2+2=4 a decisive truth?

Actually no, not from the human perspective. If you believe in God it is true from the perspective of God, or if you believe in the ultimate nature of Natural Laws. Science does make the assumption that that there is no contradiction in the Laws of Nature, but this is limited to the falsifications of theories and hpothesis, and no further. I have seen many logical arguments on Tweb that refer to the law of non-contradiction to justify the assumptions of their agenda. The use of the Law of non-contradiction in logic depends on the assumptions of the logical argument. In math it would only apply to the proof of each therom. 2+2=4 is only true in base ten math. The following reference describes some of the limits of the law of non-contradiction.



The above describes the reason that in science I do not consider there to be 'decisive truths' in science, and describe it as 'decisive knowledge,' because science can only falsify theories and hypothesis. and not prove the non-contradiction of Natural Laws.

[seer]

Actually no, not from the human perspective. If you believe in God it is true from the perspective of God, or if you believe in the ultimate nature of Natural Laws. Science does make the assumption that that there is no contradiction in the Laws of Nature, but this is limited to the falsifications of theories and hpothesis, and no further. I have seen many logical arguments on Tweb that refer to the law of non-contradiction to justify the assumptions of their agenda. The use of the Law of non-contradiction in logic depends on the assumptions of the logical argument. In math it would only apply to the proof of each therom. 2+2=4 is only true in base ten math. The following reference describes some of the limits of the law of non-contradiction.

So 2+2=4 in "base ten math" is a decisive truth then. And I'm not talking about how we use or misuse the Law of non-contradiction, but the law itself. That for instance the sun can not both exist and not exist at the same moment. That A is B and A is not B are mutually exclusive. That too is a decisive truth.

[shunyadragon]

So 2+2=4 in "base ten math" is a decisive truth then. And I'm not talking about how we use or misuse the Law of non-contradiction, but the law itself. That for instance the sun can not both exist and not exist at the same moment. That A is B and A is not B are mutually exclusive. That too is a decisive truth.

Some thing that is true for one case, ie 2+2=4 is not a decisive truth. The referense I provided covers that. There are many things that are individual true facts, but they do not represent 'decisive truths.'

[seer]

Some thing that is true for one case, ie 2+2=4 is not a decisive truth.

So 2+2 in "base ten math" could equal 5?

The referense I provided covers that. There are many things that are individual true facts, but they do not represent 'decisive truths.'

Shuny, you often post things you don't understand, so again are you suggesting that the Law of non-contradiction is not absolute, that the sun in fact can both exist and not exist at the same moment?

[shunyadragon]

So 2+2 in "base ten math" could equal 5?

2+2=4 is only true in base ten math. A fact is NOT a 'decisive truth.' In base ten math 2+2 cannot equal 57, which is only true in based ten math.

true facts are not 'decisive truths.'

Shuny, you often post thing you don't understand, so again are you suggesting that the Law of non-contradiction is not absolute, that the sun in fact can both exist and not exist at the same moment?

Seer, you often post thing you don't understand, so again are you suggesting that the Law of non-contradiction is not absolute, that the sun in fact can both exist and not exist at the same moment?

I post references, which you fail to resond to, and respond posting opinions. Read the reference and respond.

Again true facts are NOT 'decisive truths' They are simply true facts.

[shunyadragon]

2+2=4 is only true in base ten math. A fact is NOT a 'decisive truth.' In base ten math 2+2 cannot equal 57, which is only true in based ten math.

true facts are not 'decisive truths.'




I post references, which you fail to resond to, and respond posting opinions. Read the reference and respond.

Again true facts are NOT 'decisive truths' They are simply true facts.

Deleted one unnecessary line. Read the reference I provided. The Law of Non-contradiction is not absolute from the human perspective, and I provided a reference to support this. You have not responded.

Correction

[seer]

2+2=4 is only true in base ten math. A fact is NOT a 'decisive truth.' In base ten math 2+2 cannot equal 57, which is only true in based ten math.

true facts are not 'decisive truths.'

Of course it is a decisive truth, in base ten math 2+2 cannot equal 57. In other words it cannot be any other way. Why isn't that decisive? Or can you define what a decisive truth is?

The Law of Non-contradiction is not absolute from the The Law of Non-contradiction is not absolute from the human perspective, and I provided a reference to support this...

So from the human perspective the sun could both exist and not exist at the same moment? How does that work?

[shunyadragon]

Of course it is a decisive truth, in base ten math 2+2 cannot equal 57. In other words it cannot be any other way. Why isn't that decisive? Or can you define what a decisive truth is?

So from the human perspective the sun could both exist and not exist at the same moment? How does that work?

The objective observable facts does not translate either too the law of non-contradiction, nor decisive truths.'

For the law of contradiction to be valid it must be true an ALL cases, and this is also true of 'dcisive truths,' which as referenced is not the case.

The sun has only a temperol existence.

It still remains you are failing to respond to the substance of my posts and the reference I provided.

Still waiting . . .

[seer]

The objective observable facts does not translate either too the law of non-contradiction, nor decisive truths.'

For the law of contradiction to be valid it must be true an ALL cases, and this is also true of 'dcisive truths,' which as referenced is not the case.

Of course the LONC is true in all cases, it can't be otherwise. You can not both exist and not exist at the same moment.

The sun has only a temperol existence.

It doesn't matter, it is not about the sun, it is about the principle. You can apply it anything, a tree, a car or the universe - the universe can not both exist and not exist at the same moment.

It still remains you are failing to respond to the substance of my posts and the reference I provided.

Still waiting . . .

Still waiting for what? The law of non-contradiction is absolute, a decisive truth if you will. It doesn't matter if we apply it wrongly through lack of knowledge (as your link argued) the principle remains absolute.

[shunyadragon]

Of course the LONC is true in all cases, it can't be otherwise. You can not both exist and not exist at the same moment.



It doesn't matter, it is not about the sun, it is about the principle. You can apply it anything, a tree, a car or the universe - the universe can not both exist and not exist at the same moment.



Still waiting for what? The law of non-contradiction is absolute, a decisive truth if you will. It doesn't matter if we apply it wrongly through lack of knowledge (as your link argued) the principle remains absolute.

Still waiting for you to respond to the reference as cited instead of making fallible human assertions.. Your claim that the Law of Non-Contradiction would only apply if we had the absolute knowledge of God.