[What Came Before]

Indeed. Complete falsehoods can be valid.

Then again, what even constitutes a falsehood...

I'm optimistically agnostic. I have no real issue with religious claims, though I have huge issue with how religious claims are used to enable and excuse violence in the world.

Though that isn't really either here or there, for our purposes; but secular claims have been responsible for the same. That, regardless of any score-carding anyone may feel impelled to introduce.

Perhaps causality will not be the case at some point? Who knows?

I don't see that science has any mechanism for disproving causality; science depends upon causality. So even if there were a way for science to disprove causality, it would essentially be disproving itself.

If 100 tests, X happens 100 times - could be totally unrelated. Does science accept that possibility? Does it account for the possibility of its own uselessness?

Anyway, theology has disproved its own claims plenty of times. The point then is that neither can challenge its own core assumptions - in fact, that these core assumptions exist at all!

Then, insofar as both systems use basically rational approaches to creating claims, they are equally valid. And they ain't worth a shit when it comes to "truth".

[What Came Before]

Lol, you may be looking for opposition I can't offer, Bakker User.

[What Came Before]

At the risk of coming off as an evangelical nihilist (a paradox?): I would really like to encounter a convincing argument against what I've presented; otherwise, I wouldn't be able to read Bakker's posts without feeling like a massive hypocrite for enjoying them! Or anything else, really...

[What Came Before]

Perhaps causality will not be the case at some point? Who knows?

I don't see that science has any mechanism for disproving causality; science depends upon causality. So even if there were a way for science to disprove causality, it would essentially be disproving itself.

I don't know why you think science  - the act of scientific investigation - is trying to prove itself to begin with? Perhaps because you've lined it up next to religion?

Science is a practice of investigation.

Science is the practice of thinking 'If X then Y is occuring, causality is occuring'. It puts an 'if' before everything.

When an IF is put ahead of causality, why do you think it has no mechanism for disproving causality?

If 100 tests, X happens 100 times - could be totally unrelated. Does science accept that possibility? Does it account for the possibility of its own uselessness?

Either I don't know what you mean, or you didn't read what I wrote - it is accepted that on the 101st time result Y might occur.

This would of course be a trigger for further attempts at investigating why Y happened. But otherwise the previous hypothesis is proven useless. I'm not sure why you want science as a whole proven useless by one theory being proven useless? Never mind that it was proven useless by adhering to the principle of scientific practice to keep an open mind that another result might occur and if it does, then to consider the previous hypothesis as false.

Anyway, theology has disproved its own claims plenty of times.

Skeptical.

The point then is that neither can challenge its own core assumptions - in fact, that these core assumptions exist at all!

I think sciences core assumption is not causality, but the assumption that a hypothesis based on emperical measurements can be wrong.

It's rather hard to shout down that assumption as wrong, without enacting that assumption.

Then, insofar as both systems use basically rational approaches to creating claims, they are equally valid. And they ain't worth a shit when it comes to "truth".

I don't know about truth, but if you were trapped in a flooding room and one man tries to hand you a scuba tank while another man tells you to have faith in Jesus, what are you gunna do?

You've simply adopted a position that you, in particular, know what is and isn't worth a shit when it comes to "truth".

Without any disproval method.

[What Came Before]

I don't know why you think science - the act of scientific investigation - is trying to prove itself to begin with? Perhaps because you've lined it up next to religion?

I didn't say that.

Science is the practice of thinking 'If X then Y is occuring, causality is occuring'. It puts an 'if' before everything.

When an IF is put ahead of causality, why do you think it has no mechanism for disproving causality?

As I said, that's merely begging the question.

Either I don't know what you mean, or you didn't read what I wrote - it is accepted that on the 101st time result Y might occur.

I should have been more specific: does science accept the possibility that none of these "results" - a word that inherently begs the question - can ever be linked to the other events?

This would of course be a trigger for further attempts at investigating why Y happened. But otherwise the previous hypothesis is proven useless. I'm not sure why you want science as a whole proven useless by one theory being proven useless? Never mind that it was proven useless by adhering to the principle of scientific practice to keep an open mind that another result might occur and if it does, then to consider the previous hypothesis as false.

I don't see the relevance of this to what I've actually been saying.

Skeptical.

Let's focus in on Christianity, and then onto the Catholic Church - you think the Church maintains the same dogma as it did 2000 years ago? Heck, even Calvinists developed their dogma over time.

I think sciences core assumption is not causality, but the assumption that a hypothesis based on emperical measurements can be wrong.

It's rather hard to shout down that assumption as wrong, without enacting that assumption.

Note that without causality this assumption must hold. It seems to follow logically from the absence of causality, in fact - that's what I've been saying.

I don't know about truth

OK.

You've simply adopted a position that you, in particular, know what is and isn't worth a shit when it comes to "truth".

Why bring me in particular into it? Let's assume that science and religion exist as systems exclusive of my own self, which we're ultimately also assuming to exist.

Without any disproval method.

This is just logic. If these systems are predicated on unprovable assumptions while both being internally consistent in their own respects, then any claims emanating from them are merely a deck of cards. I think that logic has an inherent disproval mechanism. And after all, why would I use science to try to disprove the ultimate fallibility of science? Very motivated reasoning there. Now of course, if we might disqualify logic for whatever assumptions uphold it...

Only pause, Callan; refuse to follow the grooves these thoughts have worn into you. Pause, and you'll see.  :twisted:

[What Came Before]

I don't know why you think science - the act of scientific investigation - is trying to prove itself to begin with? Perhaps because you've lined it up next to religion?

I didn't say that.

So even if there were a way for science to disprove causality, it would essentially be disproving itself.

I have to admit it's possible there a communication failure somewhere. But this might also just be you dodging owning up to your own words.

Again, I don't know why you think this relates to the practice of science somehow disproving itself.

Definately the 'I didn't say that' responce isn't charitable reading of the other person/trying to figure out why they responded that way to you. If you are disinterested, say so. Otherwise 'I didn't say that' really isn't good enough.

Science is the practice of thinking 'If X then Y is occuring, causality is occuring'. It puts an 'if' before everything.

When an IF is put ahead of causality, why do you think it has no mechanism for disproving causality?

As I said, that's merely begging the question.

No, you've treated it as being a direct reliance on the assumption of causality.

I've just shown no such assumption is made. Only an 'if', not an 'it is'.

IF you wont listen to the difference, what can I say?

Either I don't know what you mean, or you didn't read what I wrote - it is accepted that on the 101st time result Y might occur.

I should have been more specific: does science accept the possibility that none of these "results" - a word that inherently begs the question - can ever be linked to the other events?

It's right there in the description! The 101st test could give Y result, or Z result or A result or B result or whatever.

Does that sound like an assertion of set in stone linkage?

It is dislocated. No assertion of a link.

This would of course be a trigger for further attempts at investigating why Y happened. But otherwise the previous hypothesis is proven useless. I'm not sure why you want science as a whole proven useless by one theory being proven useless? Never mind that it was proven useless by adhering to the principle of scientific practice to keep an open mind that another result might occur and if it does, then to consider the previous hypothesis as false.

I don't see the relevance of this to what I've actually been saying.

If 100 tests, X happens 100 times - could be totally unrelated. Does science accept that possibility? Does it account for the possibility of its own uselessness?

Again, you do not seem to own up to your own words of 'Does it account for the possibility of its own uselessness?'.

I'll slide a card of mine forward - this forgetful thinking is a hallmark of religious thinking. Assertions just get erased, because the 'I didn't say that' has more short term effect than relying on the previous spoken words.

It wont do much to say so except get it out in the open (if it's occuring). But if it is occuring I'm not interested in validating by letting it go unnamed.

Skeptical.

Let's focus in on Christianity, and then onto the Catholic Church - you think the Church maintains the same dogma as it did 2000 years ago? Heck, even Calvinists developed their dogma over time.

I think that's like comparing a dictatorship to a democracy in that the dictatorship has changed its policy over the years.

I suspect you think that whatever way the catholic church has changed the stories it's passed on over time/it's policies is the only way it can be done, thus the practice of science must use the same method.

No, you didn't say that. Of course not - if I'm trying to point out a potential flaw in your understanding, your are obviously not going to have said your flaw, or otherwise you'd know it already! Be charitable and humour me that these things might be in what you say and be the assumptions behind what you say.

I think sciences core assumption is not causality, but the assumption that a hypothesis based on emperical measurements can be wrong.

It's rather hard to shout down that assumption as wrong, without enacting that assumption.

Note that without causality this assumption must hold. It seems to follow logically from the absence of causality, in fact

I don't see why it must hold in the absence of causality or why it would follow logically from the absence of causality. It's just an idea.

You've simply adopted a position that you, in particular, know what is and isn't worth a shit when it comes to "truth".

Why bring me in particular into it?

Because for the third time you do not own up to your own words:

And they ain't worth a shit when it comes to "truth".

It's YOU who are making a claim here, but you treat it as if YOU hadn't said a thing - you even go so far as to ask why I'm bringing you into it, even as you quite clearly make a claim.

You seem to have trouble with anyone reading a subtext into your words rather taking them verbatum. And you lose track of your own claim making.

I'll push forward a card again - the latter is strongly indicative of religious thinking. The voice from nowhere authority undulates from being 'how things are' to 'what I said' without rhyme or concious notice.

Again, if it does happen to be occuring, I say this to make it a named thing. Brought before the eye, instead of sacading the eye from behind.

Without any disproval method.

This is just logic. If these systems are predicated on unprovable assumptions

Only one is. Unless you treat 'if' as predication.

Only pause, Callan; refuse to follow the grooves these thoughts have worn into you. Pause, and you'll see.  :twisted:

Such are the words of those who are at the very center of the world.

[What Came Before]

There's one way I'd like to deal with you, but I suppose we all accept Bakker's positions on Semantic Command & Control...

So even if there were a way for science to disprove causality, it would essentially be disproving itself.

Where in this line did you read a "must"? What I'm saying is that science has no means of disproving causality. But we'll leave it there for now, as you don't seem to recognize causality as an assumption somehow. The line is predicated on your acceptance of the fact that causality is an assumption, and one that science can not function without.

I've just shown no such assumption is made. Only an 'if', not an 'it is'.

You've shown nothing. "If X happens, then Y happens, then causality is occuring" is an instance of begging the question. How do you know that causality is occurring? For Y to be a result of X then causality must already be operative. A consequence of causality can not be a proof of causality without begging the question. It is circular reasoning.

It's right there in the description! The 101st test could give Y result, or Z result or A result or B result or whatever.

Look - if each test gives a different "result" because everything occurs randomly, then what the hell use is science? It would tell you nothing about anything, in this scenario. In this scenario (of randomness) a test is correlated temporally to a pink elephant, and this pink elephant has nothing to do with the test: it's random.

Again, you do not seem to own up to your own words of 'Does it account for the possibility of its own uselessness?'.

I'm referring to the absence of causality. If you're not getting what I'm putting across, then while I am at fault for not tailoring my words to your peculiar psychology, your peculiar psychology is at fault as well. Take some responsibility.

I'll slide a card of mine forward - this forgetful thinking is a hallmark of religious thinking. Assertions just get erased, because the 'I didn't say that' has more short term effect than relying on the previous spoken words.

Doubtful. I'm an atheist, by the way.

I suspect you think that whatever way the catholic church has changed the stories it's passed on over time/it's policies is the only way it can be done

As I said, I'm an atheist. Why do you make unnecessary assumptions like this? Why not stick to the discussion at hand?

No, you didn't say that. Of course not - if I'm trying to point out a potential flaw in your understanding, your are obviously not going to have said your flaw, or otherwise you'd know it already! Be charitable and humour me that these things might be in what you say and be the assumptions behind what you say.

Humor you? I'm debating with you! Are you really asking me to just throw up my hands and take your position without a second thought to its contradictions?

Ha, see? That's an interpretation you likely didn't intend - but I put it forth to confound you. This is just how it feels for me, by the way, when you say really bizarre, irrelevant, and/or heretofore-addressed things. Now, if we're just going to trade platitudes and flippant analogies continually, then let the whole affair end sooner rather than later. Confront my propositions, and try to think them through.

I don't see why it must hold in the absence of causality or why it would follow logically from the absence of causality. It's just an idea.

Alright, we'll walk through it.

You said this:

I think sciences core assumption is not causality, but the assumption that a hypothesis based on emperical measurements can be wrong.

As I said earlier in this post, if everything is random (as would be the case without causality) then every hypothesis based on empirical measurements MUST be wrong. Try it: I hypothesize that my post will influence you into making a reply. Now, I remove causality from the equation. Now, that hypothesis must be incorrect, as without the potential for causative influence your reply (if it indeed were to come) would be completely random and unrelated to my post in any way. Do you see it yet?

Because for the third time you do not own up to your own words:

You've taken me too literally here. Can't you see subtext? <insert smiley here so you get the idea> See a couple of points up for an explanation.

It's YOU who are making a claim here

My "claim" is a consequence; it follows from what I've presented.  This is a problem - don't jump to the very end of the idea-chain and complain that it doesn't make sense standing alone!

You seem to have trouble with anyone reading a subtext into your words rather taking them verbatum. And you lose track of your own claim making.

I have trouble with obliquity.

I'll push forward a card again - the latter is strongly indicative of religious thinking.

Quit committing the fallacy of associating things you don't like with unrelated things you don't like! For Bakker's sake...

Again, if it does happen to be occuring, I say this to make it a named thing. Brought before the eye, instead of sacading the eye from behind.

The voice from nowhere authority undulates from being 'how things are' to 'what I said' without rhyme or concious notice.

Farcical. Do you see the link between the two, set as they are one above the other?

Only one is. Unless you treat 'if' as predication.

"If causality is operative, such-and-such etc." - yes, that's calling down an assumption. The religious equivalent would roughly be, "If God exists, then such-and-such etc." The only way out of this for you is to show that causality is not an assumption of science, which I've clearly demonstrated it to be. Would you like more?

Such are the words of those who are at the very center of the world.

They're Bakker's words. Perhaps you haven't read PoN closely enough? 

(Yes, that is indeed a double-entendre; but let that be my quota for jibes and facetieties)

[What Came Before]

There's one way I'd like to deal with you

I'm going to skip reading your post until I know there's some mutual good will involved here. If you wrote the quoted section because you think there isn't good will on my part, okay, that's not true but I get that you have to place your bets. Otherwise if you think there is goodwill on my part, I'd like some confirmation it's mutual rather than I am percieved as an object to be dealt with as you will. One test is 'would you speak that way in a face to face conversation?'. I try and write what I'd be prepared to say in person (though generally with time to compose I can write better than what I could spontaniously say in conversation).

[What Came Before]

I didn't want to use "converse" there, as I thought it would bring the sentence off-kilter.

What I specifically was getting at in that line was that I'd like to resort to the "You're deliberately misunderstanding me" piece, but acknowledged with some sadness that it is indeed invalid for ever.

One test is 'would you speak that way in a face to face conversation?

I haven't had a face-to-face conversation with anyone in 6 years. I meant what I said in that intro post.

[What Came Before]

So even if there were a way for science to disprove causality, it would essentially be disproving itself.

Where in this line did you read a "must"?

The way I know english, 'would' and 'must' mean pretty much the same thing here.

The charitable reading I can give is that I don't speak your language. It's a derivative of english (or my language is a derivative of english. Either way, same deal).

The other reading is that you simply state claims, then give way on them and ask why I think you were making a claim.

I'll try a dungeon scenario - you say 'When we press this button, it would open the door to the next room'. Someone presses the button and scorpions come out of a hole in the wall. Do you say 'I never said it must open the door!'

You've shown nothing. "If X happens, then Y happens, then causality is occuring" is an instance of begging the question.

You're ignoring 'if' as a qualifying statement. By your logic if I say 'If I buy a lottery ticket, then my numbers come up, then I have won the lottery' you'll read me as saying that just by buying a lottery ticket, I'll win the lottery. This is simply either bad reading, or you work from some derivative of english (or I do).

Well, you can keep arguing that science essentially says if you buy a ticket, you'll win. It's not true, though that is what every religion operates from.

Look - if each test gives a different "result" because everything occurs randomly, then what the hell use is science?

It's use is that it will admit it is of no use. This is the humility of science. Tell me of a religion that has a process by which it'll admit itself useless?

I'll pause here, as even this amount of reply may still evoke large posts of responce. Or if the above gets sorted out shortly, then I'll move on to more of your reply.

[What Came Before]

The way I know english, 'would' and 'must' mean pretty much the same thing here.

Hmm... your trouble seems to be with syntax. Read the full sentence again.

So even if there were a way for science to disprove causality, it would essentially be disproving itself.

And your reply:

I don't know why you think science - the act of scientific investigation - is trying to prove itself to begin with? Perhaps because you've lined it up next to religion?

I never said that science is trying to disprove itself. I said that science has no mechanism for disproving causality. What I did say: If, on the other hand, there were such a mechanism - it is crucial that you understand this caveat which I was making - then - and let me make it explicit - without a mechanism for proving causality it would necessarily be disproving itself. Why, you might ask? Because science is predicated upon causality - that's literally my whole point.

You're ignoring 'if' as a qualifying statement.

The way I speak English, "if" is a predicating word, just like "assuming".

Well, you can keep arguing that science essentially says if you buy a ticket, you'll win. It's not true, though that is what every religion operates from.

I don't want to misinterpret you here, so please rephrase that without abstraction.

It's use is that it will admit it is of no use. This is the humility of science. Tell me of a religion that has a process by which it'll admit itself useless?

"Humility" of science? Why should I value humility over correctness? This sort of statement does nothing for me. I could care less how 'nice' or 'good' or 'moral' or what-have-you any one abstraction appears to you.


BUT - I note that you tacitly admit my very point: 

it will admit it is of no use

So you agree that without causality, science can not function properly.

What, then, are you arguing for? That I should maintain a sacred faith in Science, which with strong hand and outstretched arm has theoretically lifted our People up out of the Land of Ignorance, in which we lived as slaves, and brought us into the Land of Reason, a place flowing with milk and honey, in which we shall live for ever and ever and become as numerous as are the grains of sand in the Sea, most Blessed among Species, so long as we keep our Covenant with Science?

[What Came Before]

Why does science depend on causality?  From all I've seen, this was something stated that was simply taken for granted.

Causality is a way in which we represent reality to ourselves; we note that certain actions follow others, and link them together via causal reasoning.  This doesn't mean that causality exists, but merely that we associate temporal moments in a causal way.

Science, especially in its contemporary state, is aware of the shortcomings of causality; but, since science is based on experiment and trial-and-error, I don't think it requires causality in order to function.  We can still follow our day-to-day operations without any appeal to causality.  We can doubt causality since this will allow us more easily to accept when commonly occurring phenomena do not follow in the manner/order to which we are accustomed; but science, in my opinion, is focused on determining correlation, not causation.  After enough experimental trials communicate the same, or similar, results, we find a plausible basis on which to assume that such results will continue.  I don't think science "disproves" itself if it somehow manages to disprove causality.  Science has always been concerned with correlation: i.e. "The following conditions yielded the same results 9 out of 10 times; thus, it is likely that these conditions will continue to yield such results (however, it is not imperative that these conditions yield such results)."

[What Came Before]

Interesting. Keeping it on your terms:

but science, in my opinion, is focused on determining correlation, not causation

This line suggests that all causal statements should be considered non-scientific; that is, once a "scientist" extrapolates results or develops a theory, they necessarily stray outside the realm of science - because "science isn't about determining causation". Would you abide by that assessment?

After enough experimental trials communicate the same, or similar, results, we find a plausible basis on which to assume that such results will continue.

Without causality, there is certainly no plausible basis.

Again, would you accept the notion that "assum[ing]...such results will continue" is unscientific?

"The following conditions yielded the same results 9 out of 10 times; thus, it is likely that these conditions will continue to yield such results (however, it is not imperative that these conditions yield such results)."

Without causality, it is imperative that these conditions have no relation to these "results".

I need to hear how you make irreconcilable this

once a "scientist" extrapolates results or develops a theory, they necessarily stray outside the realm of science

with

but science, in my opinion, is focused on determining correlation, not causation

I simply can't see how one can remove causation from science's ambit without accepting that science is incapable of prediction and generalization. which really REQUIRE causality in at least some extent.

I mean, it certainly seems to me that science ascribes - that is, causally links - phenomena to physical, non-supernatural causes, in its current form. It certainly seems to me that science seeks to correlate to predict and generalize.

I really need to see whether you reject my initial formulation, and if so how you make compatible the apparent functions and claims of modern science with what I'm treating as your core line:

but science, in my opinion, is focused on determining correlation, not causation

 :?:

EDIT: And, isn't that really the point of correlating in the first place - to discern where the causation lies, and so better yoke it to human purposes? After all, any system can invoke correlation - for instance, I can correlate my post with yours. And it is my conception of science that a scientific approach would attempt to investigate the correlations between my posts and yours, both past and future, to discover whether there is some causation at work between them. I simply can't conceive of science as removed from making causal assessments.

[What Came Before]

Causality is a way in which we represent reality to ourselves; we note that certain actions follow others, and link them together via causal reasoning. This doesn't mean that causality exists, but merely that we associate temporal moments in a causal way.

I will note that humans don't temporally associate in unanimous fashion.

Bakker User, I have to ask - what's the switch? This seems like bait; what is your ulterior position after someone yields to the claim you've made? And mind, anyone might simply embody your passion within an tact for linguistic semantics rather than assume that your use of language actually dissembles phenomena the way you seem to think.

[What Came Before]

your passion within an tact for linguistic semantics

Ouch, is that what you see?

what's the switch? This seems like bait; what is your ulterior position after someone yields to the claim you've made?

I think I mentioned earlier, though perhaps not all that explicitly, that I would like to encounter an argument against my premises that I can't think my way around, thus forcing me to abjure for at least as long as I remain incognizant of a good counter. This is sort of a Bakkerian exercise, I think.