Anyone fancy a debate?

Kedaman
Re: Logical paradox in falsification

Quote:

---

Its called logical deduction.

---

Well I would add the word faulty in there.

If I make the statement that the moon is made from green cheese, and then get proven wrong, it does not refute the notion that reality exists in any sense. Merely that it does not exist in the sense that includes the moon being made from green cheese.

Your conclusion was innapropriately derived from your premise.

Re: Intrumentalism vs. Realism

Quote:

---

Yep, I argue that all realists are instrumentalists. Otherways you wouldn't be able to use logic

---

I think the point here is that a true scientist cannot be at either of the idiological extremes. It is the realism side that drives scientific progress but it is the instrumentalist side that allows us to detach freely between different explanatory models to adopt just what is useful from them, and nothing more.

I think that to believe that one can exist without the other, or that one is a subset of the other is just misunderstanding the concept (as it is most commonly understood).

Simon
Re: Logical paradox in falsification

Quote:

---

If I make the statement that the moon is made from green cheese, and then get proven wrong, it does not refute the notion that reality exists in any sense. Merely that it does not exist in the sense that includes the moon being made from green cheese.

---

No, you have misunderstood me. I clearly said, IF the notation of reality was defined in one piece, in otherwords without contradicting material, in case you wanted your green cheese moon in, it would make a contradiction with existing material.

Quote:

---

Your conclusion was innapropriately derived from your premise.

---

No, there is no premise (definitely not mine) yet, that formulates reality in one piece, which is a criteria for the falsification i mentioned, which is paradoxal.


Re: Intrumentalism vs. Realism

Quote:

---

I think that to believe that one can exist without the other, or that one is a subset of the other is just misunderstanding the concept (as it is most commonly understood).

---

I disagree. I argue that for there to be any use of such keywords, they have to be contrained so that it forms a category for people to fall in. With your extreme definitions no one will fall into either categories. I still think realists are a subset of intrumentalists, because reality is conceptually information.

Although even if we would have no terminology that matches the two categories we are discussing, I think we should leave the terminology and accept the conceptual idea that your constrained space is a subset of mine.

Kedaman
Re: Intrumentalism vs. Realism

Quote:

---

I still think realists are a subset of intrumentalists, because reality is conceptually information.

---

But this implies that reality is only defined in terms of how we percieve it and that a reality outside of our perception is not considered. And this is the key difference. Instrumentalists do not consider reality outside or independant of our perception. Realists do. Therefore realists are not instrumentalists.

Quote:

---

Although even if we would have no terminology that matches the two categories we are discussing, I think we should leave the terminology and accept the conceptual idea that your constrained space is a subset of mine.

---

If your concept includes consideration of reality independant of our perception (and therefore not information) then you are not an instrumentalist. You are someone who encapsulates both concepts.

Re: Logical paradox in falsification

There is a fault in your initial premise:

Quote:

---

Ok you proposed something to hold true in reality until its been falsified, additionally it is scientific as long as it can be falsified.
Hence, the fact that reality does not exist holds true in reality - which is as you see paradoxal.

---

I did not say that everything that has not been falsified (but could be) is to be considered true until it is falsified. Infact, we make no judgement whatsoever regarding statements that have not yet been falsified (other than whether or not they can be falsified). Unfalsified statements are merely contenders for the truth. They are potentially valid but are not considered verified in any way whatsoever.

Simon
Re: Intrumentalism vs. Realism

Quote:

---

But this implies that reality is only defined in terms of how we percieve it and that a reality outside of our perception is not considered. And this is the key difference. Instrumentalists do not consider reality outside or independant of our perception. Realists do. Therefore realists are not instrumentalists.

---

I disagree. Maybe we should look up formal definition?

Quote:

---

If your concept includes consideration of reality independant of our perception (and therefore not information) then you are not an instrumentalist. You are someone who encapsulates both concepts.

---

I'd say have less constraints, if my definition of instrumentalism is indeed faulty as you say.

Re: Logical paradox in falsification

Quote:

---

I did not say that everything that has not been falsified (but could be) is to be considered true until it is falsified. Infact, we make no judgement whatsoever regarding statements that have not yet been falsified (other than whether or not they can be falsified). Unfalsified statements are merely contenders for the truth. They are potentially valid but are not considered verified in any way whatsoever.

---

Ok, now this sounds like a better definition. Only one thing, how do you define falsification itself?

Kedaman

Quote:

---

I disagree. Maybe we should look up formal definition?

---

OK, how about these: Instrumentalism

Quote:

---

The doctrine that scientific theories are not true descriptions of an unobservable reality, but merely useful instruments which enable us to order and anticipate the observable world.
The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, © Oxford University Press 1995

---

Quote:

---

A philosophy of science which judges the worth of a theory by its fit with empirical evidence but requires no understanding of causal correlation.
A Dictionary of Geography, Oxford University Press.

---

Quote:

---

Philosophical theory, developed in the late 19th century by J. Dewey, which holds that beliefs, hypotheses, etc. are instruments with which we engage with the world in which we live, and are therefore justified simply to the extent that they are successful and fruitful.
The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics, © Oxford University Press 1997.

---

Re: Falsification

Quote:

---

...how do you define falsification itself?

---

Well, I'm not sure whether you are enquiring as to a definition of the concept of falsification or whether you want clarification on exactly how you would go about testing for falsification.

The key principle is that a good scientific theory prohibits particular occurences or events. The more it prohibits, the more testable it is.

If a theory prohibits a particular occurence and that occurence can be (repeatedly) reproduced, it is considered falsified.

For example, If I made the assertion that all foxes are red, it is equivillent to the assertion that: "you will not find a fox that is not red." Now, it doesn't matter how many red foxes I come accross, the theory is not considered verified. However, if I find a black fox, my theory has now been falsified (and must consequantially be revised or rejected).

Simon
According to those definitions I do not fit the instrumentalist definition either, In other words, there would need to be another term?

Re: Falsification

Quote:

---

Well, I'm not sure whether you are enquiring as to a definition of the concept of falsification or whether you want clarification onexactly how you would go about testing for falsification.

The key principle is that a good scientific theory prohibits particular occurences or events. The more it prohibits, the more testable it is.

If a theory prohibits a particular occurence and that occurence can be (repeatedly) reproduced, it is considered falsified.


For example, If I made the assertion that all foxes are red, it is equivillent to the assertion that: "you will not find a fox that is not red." Now, it doesn't matter how many red foxes I come accross, the theory is not considered verified. However, if I find a black fox, my theory has now been falsified (and must consequantially be revised or rejected).

---

Ok, lets go back to the example with relaticistic theory and newton mechanics.
1. Is any of them falsified as you get inaccurate results?
2. Is any of them scientific as you cannot find a way to falsify it?
3. Is there a degree of scientificness and how do you define it?

Kedaman

Quote:

---

Ok, lets go back to the example with relaticistic theory and newton mechanics.

---

Ok then, let's do that.

Quote:

---

1. Is any of them falsified as you get inaccurate results?
2. Is any of them scientific as you cannot find a way to falsify it?
3. Is there a degree of scientificness and how do you define it?

---

OK, let's first start by how you define which are scientific statements and which are non-scientific or metaphysical. This questions has often been called the problem of demarkation.

A theory is scientific if it makes testable assertions. Indeed, it's informative content is in proportion to the number of testable assertions it makes.

A good scientific theory is prohibitary in nature. Such a theory prohibits particular occurences and allows others.

Scientific theories are universal in nature. Since they are universal, it never possible to verify it (since non-conflicting evidence might equally be used to support another rival theory).

Existential statements, on the other hand, are verifiable. They assert that something exists (with at least one instance). They are not falsifiable because an occurence that would contradict such a statement is inconceivable.

Thus, the theory that God exists is only existential and non scientific. It may be true but it is not worthy of scientific examination because it does not make any testable assertions.

Simon

Quote:

---

Existential statements, on the other hand, are verifiable. They assert that something exists (with at least one instance). They are not falsifiable because an occurence that would contradict such a statement is inconceivable.

---

The turing machine is the ultimate tool for expressing computable solutions to problems, lambda calculus similar, and pure lambda calculus (of which lambda calculus is a subset) which consists purely of functions, in other words, no constants. Ex, true would be a function of its implications.

Applying this on existential statements, you can see that they are as well prohibitary in nature, they restrict their implication from occurring.

This is just a side issue, what I want to know, is how you suppose falsification of a theory like newton mechanics, as it shows approximated results, and relaticistic theory which is a lot more accurate but still is an approximation. Additionally you encounter an error factor for each observation, how do you cope with that?

Kedaman

Quote:

---

Applying this on existential statements, you can see that they are as well prohibitary in nature, they restrict their implication from occurring.

---

Ok then, consider the statement: "There exists a magical unicorn with a horn of pure gold."

Now, can you tell me at least one occurence that would falsify this statement? What exactly does the above statement prohibit? It prohibits nothing and therefore is untestable.

Which leads me to your second point:

Quote:

---

...what I want to know, is how you suppose falsification of a theory like newton mechanics, as it shows approximated results, and relaticistic theory which is a lot more accurate but still is an approximation. Additionally you encounter an error factor for each observation, how do you cope with that?

---

First you must ask yourself which occurences would falsify he newtonian gravitational model? What does it prohibit?

For example, one of the additional assertions that Einstein's theory of gravitation made over and above Newton's was that light itself would be bent by gravity. He predicted that light from stars would be bent by the sun's gravity when passing close by it. This would cause the star's position (relative to others) to shift slightly. Einstein was able to observe this during an eclipse.

Now, if Einstein had been wrong and light was not affected by gravity, the "observed" position of the stars would have remained unchanged and his assertion would have been falsified. Note, his new theory was not verified at that point. His theory made additional assertions and predictions which, when tested for, were not refuted.

Einstein's theory replaced Newton's, not only because it was more accurate, but because it made additional (testable) assertions that has not been refuted. It's informative content increased and thus it is more valuable.

Note also that Newtonian gravity wasn't actually falsified. It was just surpassed by a more informative theory. If, one day, an even more informative theory is proposed that makes even more predictions and assertions than Einstein's, we will test it and see if it can be refuted. If not, it will take it's rightful place as our best available theory of gravitation.

Simon
Once again you have successfully missed my point. I was talking about approximations. Using the formulas available and with the observed measurement you never get but an approximation to the observations, does this mean that the formulas are refuted? If not, then more strictly, how can you falsify such a formula?

Quote:

---

Ok then, consider the statement: "There exists a magical unicorn with a horn of pure gold."

Now, can you tell me at least one occurence that would falsify this statement? What exactly does the above statement prohibit? It prohibits nothing and therefore is untestable.

---

The event of none being defined, falsifies the above. It prohibits that event exactly.

Kedaman

Quote:

---

Once again you have successfully missed my point.

---

That's my speciality! :p

Quote:

---

I was talking about approximations. Using the formulas available and with the observed measurement you never get but an approximation to the observations, does this mean that the formulas are refuted? If not, then more strictly, how can you falsify such a formula?

---

Well, if the margin of error is accounted for within the reliability of the testing equipment used, then it would not be considered refuted. For example, if you make predictions about the path of various different planets and it turns out that they (repeatedly) concur with those predictions yet deviate with in that, already allowed for, margin of error. It would not be considered falsified.

Even beyond the margin of error, a theory may not be entirely rejected due to predictive errors. Sometimes, only individual assertions (contained within a wider theory) will be refuted. In this case they may either be dropped altogether or modified to accomodate such anomalities.

Now, I'm sure that all of the above sounds a bit wooly. That is probably a reflection of my poor understanding of the process. I am currently reading a book by Karl Popper (The logic of scientific discovery) and I have not yet got as far as an indepth look into the mechanics of falsification itself.

Re: Magical Unicorn (with horn of gold)

Quote:

---

The event of none being defined, falsifies the above. It prohibits that event exactly.

---

None what? What do you mean by "none being defined"? Do you mean no existance whatsoever? Nothing existing? If you do then, I take your rather irrelevant point. I say irrelevant because if there is no existance, you are not around to make the observation. If you exist, it is impossible to falisify the assertion that something else exists.

I'm starting to feel like Dr. Who who just discovered he's put in the wrong coordinates in his machine :eek:

Simon

Quote:

---

Well, if the margin of error is accounted for within the reliability of the testing equipment used, then it would not be considered refuted. For example, if you make predictions about the path of various different planets and it turns out that they (repeatedly) concur with those predictions yet deviate with in that, already allowed for, margin of error. It would not be considered falsified.

Even beyond the margin of error, a theory may not be entirely rejected due to predictive errors. Sometimes, only individual assertions (contained within a wider theory) will be refuted. In this case they may either be dropped altogether or modified to accomodate such anomalities.

Now, I'm sure that all of the above sounds a bit wooly. That is probably a reflection of my poor understanding of the process. I am currently reading a book by Karl Popper (The logic of scientific discovery) and I have not yet got as far as an indepth look into the mechanics of falsification itself.

---

I have never seen such maragins defined, only seen the words approximation and model everywhere. Even a realist must admit that models is everything you have. Anyways I'm interested in what you will find out in book :)

Re: Magical Unicorn (with horn of gold)

Quote:

---

None what? What do you mean by "none being defined"? Do you mean no existance whatsoever? Nothing existing? If you do then, I take your rather irrelevant point. I say irrelevant because if there is no existance, you are not around to make the observation. If you exist, it is impossible to falisify the assertion that something else exists.

---

No magical unicorns (with horn of gold) defined. Btw, In order for it to be a definition X at all, you would according to predicate calculus have:
Unicorn(X),magical(X),Horn(X,gold)
Existance is indeed not bound to observation, it is a mere definition, so you can ie perform a search of a unicorn with these criterias in a datastructure.

Kedaman

Quote:

---

I have never seen such maragins defined, only seen the words approximation and model everywhere. Even a realist must admit that models is everything you have. Anyways I'm interested in what you will find out in book

---

Yes, a realist should realise that all theories are nothing more than approximations of an underlying truth.

However, it strikes me that there is a difference between a theory that produces predictions that are always a good approximation of the observations and a theory that produces predictions that are completely contrary to observations made.

Quote:

---

No magical unicorns (with horn of gold) defined. Btw, In order for it to be a definition X at all, you would according to predicate calculus have:
Unicorn(X),magical(X),Horn(X,gold)
Existance is indeed not bound to observation, it is a mere definition, so you can ie perform a search of a unicorn with these criterias in a datastructure.

---

I don't really know what you're talking about and I suspect it has little or no implications for an empirical scientific method. The very hypothesis that asserts the existance of a magical unicorn is all the definition we need. The point being that no observation we make could ever refute such a hypothesis. Thus it is not scientific.

Simon
You can't have both:

Quote:

---

nothing more than approximations of an underlying truth.

---

Quote:

---

that are always a good approximation of the observations

---

make up your mind :)
Ok, we agree that we only have approximations, now if we for a moment assumed that reality did exist, and drew a flowchart of the information:
[Reality]-->[Error Factor]-->[Observer]
How can you be certain what complexity is contained in the transformator [Error Factor]? What if it inverted all the input from reality and gave you a negative image of it? Then you wouldn't have an approximation of reality, but rather a negation, but you can always say that the error transformed information is approximated by the observer.

Quote:

---

I don't really know what you're talking about and I suspect it has little or no implications for an empirical scientific method. The very hypothesis that asserts the existance of a magical unicorn is all the definition we need. The point being that no observation we make could ever refute such a hypothesis. Thus it is not scientific.

---

Ask yourself, how do you test the existance of reality itself. Is it not by defintion, that we Assume that it exists? Look at all science, it is all based on definitions upon definintions upon definitions.

Kedaman

Quote:

---

[Reality]-->[Error Factor]-->[Observer]
How can you be certain what complexity is contained in the transformator [Error Factor]?

---

Well, you can define known sources of error but there are always going to be unknown sources of error.

Quote:

---

What if it inverted all the input from reality and gave you a negative image of it? Then you wouldn't have an approximation of reality, but rather a negation, but you can always say that the error transformed information is approximated by the observer.

---

Well, I'm sure it would soon become clear that our observations were being inverted because, in our attempts to engage reality, we would soon realise that an inversion was necessary. This kind of distortion would always be detected and accounted for.

Quote:

---

Ask yourself, how do you test the existance of reality itself. Is it not by defintion, that we Assume that it exists? Look at all science, it is all based on definitions upon definintions upon definitions.

---

No, I'm not going to enter the solipsist discussion again. Realists assume reality exists. They don't test for it.

Simon

Quote:

---

No, I'm not going to enter the solipsist discussion again. Realists assume reality exists. They don't test for it.

---

Aha, but this is totally unscientific, there's no way to test if the realist exists or not. Unicorn or reality, whats the difference?

Quote:

---

Well, you can define known sources of error but there are always going to be unknown sources of error.

---

Those "known" sources, are observed, which means they're part of the following transformation, which we call the approximations.

Quote:

---

Well, I'm sure it would soon become clear that our observations were being inverted because, in our attempts to engage reality, we would soon realise that an inversion was necessary. This kind of distortion would always be detected and accounted for.

---

How can you detect it? You'd have to figure out how the inversion of your observations would look like.

Being the devil's advocate ...

How do you test that reality doesn't exist ?

Wally: The same way, an occurance of reality falsifies it.

So you need an occurrance to reject the theory that it doesn't exist and you need the absence of an occurrance to reject the theory that it does exist ... ad infinitum

Bit of a conundrum there ...

Kedaman

Quote:

---

Aha, but this is totally unscientific, there's no way to test if the realist exists or not.

---

Yes, that's right. The assertion that there exists a reality independant of our preception is unscientific. It is not a prohibitary statement. It is not a testable assertion.

Quote:

---

Unicorn or reality, whats the difference?

---

No difference. Both statements are existential in nature and consequantially non-scientific.

Now, don't get be wrong, I'm not saying that because a statement or hypothesis is non-scientific, it is false. Far from it. I'm saying that it is not worthy of scientific investigation.

Quote:

---

How can you detect it? You'd have to figure out how the inversion of your observations would look like.

---

Well, it would soon become clear that we would have to invert our actions to engage with entities we "observed". Indeed, this inversion compensator would probably become automated to such an extent that we became no longer aware of it (much like the way our brains automatically "flip" our vision).

WallyPip

Quote:

---

So you need an occurrance to reject the theory that it doesn't exist and you need the absence of an occurrance to reject the theory that it does exist ... ad infinitum

Bit of a conundrum there ...

---

No, you can't ever refute the assertion that something exists. How can you observe a "non-occurence"? There is no such thing. You can only say that it hasn't been verified yet.

Simon

Quote:

---

not worthy of scientific investigation.

---

Are you saying not worthy a investigation or just scientific inverstigation, ie, solving a mathematic problem isn't scientific but still a investigation? Why do you call for instance "computer science" with science, when it definitely is purely based on information?

Quote:

---

(much like the way our brains automatically "flip" our vision).

---

That's not what I meant, you keep misunderstanding me whenever theres room for that.
You try to equalize observation with reality, but my intetion is to explain that you shouldn't.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by simonm
WallyPip

No, you can't ever refute the assertion that something exists. How can you observe a "non-occurence"? There is no such thing. You can only say that it hasn't been verified yet.

---

If you can't find a occurance, then its non-occurance. That simple.

A non-occurrance is the absence of an occurrance. Simple (as Keddie said).
I meant that in order to proof an occurrance you have to reject the fact that there is an non-occurrance and if you want to proof that there is a non-occurrance you have to reject the fact that there is an occurrance.
In short, you'd be going around in metaphysical circles, hence the conundrum :D

Thats a problem for the realist, not me, (ie ask simon to define a word, he will say that he can't). I can defined everything i want on the other hand.

Wally Pip

Well, if you define a "non-occurence" as something that hasn't happened then there is a flaw in this statement:

Quote:

---

you need the absence of an occurrance to reject the theory that it does exist ... ad infinitum

---

You can never reject the theory that something does exist. Asserting that something exists does not prohibit it's "non-occurence".

The point I am making is that existential statements are irrefuteable (and therefore unscientific).

Asserting something doesn't exist, on the other hand, is a refuteable statement. It prohibits the occurence of the entity in question. Observing such an occurence therefore falsifies the statement.

Kedaman

Quote:

---

Are you saying not worthy a investigation or just scientific inverstigation

---

My remarks are addressed purely to distinguish scientific from all other types of investigation. There are many other types of investigation, but if you consider science as having the aims to establish universal models that explain (approximately) reality and predict future behaviour, then it is reasonable that we should define the very nature of such questions?

Normal investigations are usually just ammassing facts and observations. Compling an array of singular statements and facts that will fill in a picture of what something looked like or behaved like in the past. In order to predict future behaviour of a given system, we need to form generalisations that model it's behaviour in a universal sense.

It is in the pursuit of these generalisations that we need to be empirical in our method. It is the assertions that impose generalisations that need to be scientific in nature.

Kedaman

Oops...I forget to address your remaining points:

Quote:

---

That's not what I meant, you keep misunderstanding me whenever theres room for that.

---

Well, you know what to do...Don't leave room for misinterpretation. :p

Quote:

---

You try to equalize observation with reality, but my intetion is to explain that you shouldn't.

---

Yes, believe it or not, I do realise the point you are making. The point I made in reply addressed the problem.

The two-way interaction we have with reality enable us to detect and overcome persistant and consistant distortions in our sensual input.

What does it matter anyway? So our perception of reality may be inverted. It just means that any theory we come up to explain the nature of reality will be inverted in compensation. Thus we will still be able to make acurate predictions of the system in question.

If our awareness of a system is inverted, our theory that dictates how we should interact with such a system will also be inverted. Our predictions will be inverted.

Simon
1. A point that you didn't answer first: Why is it called Computer Science

Quote:

---

Yes, believe it or not, I do realise the point you are making. The point I made in reply addressed the problem.

The two-way interaction we have with reality enable us to detect and overcome persistant and consistant distortions in our sensual input.

---

2. Well it still seems you're not getting my point. You argue that you can trough control overcome distortions, well that's not the point. The point is that you can only percept what is provided to you, and that is certainly not reality i'm talking about, i'm talking about the observations you make. They are pure information. If you argue that they come from a physical reality then there has to be a transformation that you can't detect, because there is no detection mechanism for such.

Quote:

---

What does it matter anyway? So our perception of reality may be inverted. It just means that any theory we come up to explain the nature of reality will be inverted in compensation. Thus we will still be able to make acurate predictions of the system in question.

---

3. That's an instrumentalistic view, it doesn't matter how the reality actually is on the other side, as long as you know how it looks like on this side.

Quote:

---

You can never reject the theory that something does exist.

---

4. Why? I see existance as information, prohibiting it sure makes a theory.

Kedaman

Quote:

---

A point that you didn't answer first: Why is it called Computer Science

---

I didn't answer this question because I don't know and I don't care. It would not suprise me for one moment that the term 'science' was used loosely in this context.

However, there is still room for the growth of knowledge in computing environments. AI is a prime example.

I don't see any point in pursuing this issue any longer.

Quote:

---

The point is that you can only percept what is provided to you, and that is certainly not reality i'm talking about, i'm talking about the observations you make. They are pure information. If you argue that they come from a physical reality then there has to be a transformation that you can't detect, because there is no detection mechanism for such.

---

No, we cannot detect these distortions in the mechanisms that we use for making observations.
However, assuming an existant, consistant and external reality, we will interact with it in a consistant way. For this interaction to be successful, compensation to adjust to the particular distortion will render the distortion irrelevant.

Quote:

---

That's an instrumentalistic view, it doesn't matter how the reality actually is on the other side, as long as you know how it looks like on this side.

---

Ah, but it is external reality, in conjunction with how our senses distort their input, that determines what we experience. We must know what reality is like on the other side. Or at least we quest to that end.

Quote:

---

Why? I see existance as information, prohibiting it sure makes a theory.

---

I don't understand this statement. What does "There exists a magical unicorn" prohibit? Any conceivable occurence or observation made would concur with such a statement. It cannot be refuted (unless you deny that anyting including yourself exists).

Simon

Quote:

---

assuming an existant, consistant and external reality, we will interact with it in a consistant way.

---

This does not make sense, how does a reality imply a consistent interaction with it?

Quote:

---

Ah, but it is external reality, in conjunction with how our senses distort their input, that determines what we experience. We must know what reality is like on the other side. Or at least we quest to that end.

---

What senses? Didn't you notice that I was refering to your consciousness not your brain (thats a mere realist concept too), what binds consciousness with reality?

Quote:

---

I don't understand this statement. What does "There exists a magical unicorn" prohibit?

---

It prohibits the occurance of no magical unicorns to exist, and thus you can falsify it by observing such an occurance.

Kedeman

Ah, I thought we'd given up on this topic. :)

Quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't understand this statement. What does "There exists a magical unicorn" prohibit?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It prohibits the occurance of no magical unicorns to exist, and thus you can falsify it by observing such an occurance.

---

How can one observe such an occurence? I am not observing any unicorns as I sit here at my computer and does that mean that I have observed that they don't exist? No. It doesn't matter how far and wide I travel, how hard I search, even if I don't spot a single unicorn, I haven't actually verified they don't exist, have I?

And, that's exactly the point. Existential statements cannot be refuted because you never know what's around the next corner.

Don't get me wrong, Unicorns may indeed not exist but we can never verify that. (merely deem it as unlikely).

Quote:

---

This does not make sense, how does a reality imply a consistent interaction with it?

---

Well, I always switch my computer on in the same way. I interact with it in the same way. So, this seems to imply that reality exists in a consistant manner. (Which it would have no reason to do if it was a construct of my own imagination).

Simon
well, I thought I replied here but obviously it never happened :confused:

Quote:

---

How can one observe such an occurence?

---

Well if you don't happen to see any at the moment, they obviously don't exist in your vision of sight, and thus falsifies that they do, at the same basis as if you happen to see one, falsifies that they don't (and if you think your vision of sight limits you then it will do the same when you turn away from the sight of the unicorn)

Quote:

---

Don't get me wrong, Unicorns may indeed not exist but we can never verify that. (merely deem it as unlikely).

---

No, falsify their existance, you should say, and this possible trough the same methods of falsification- observation.

Quote:

---

Which it would have no reason to do if it was a construct of my own imagination

---

Why? This is something that I don't understand, why can't everything be an imagination?

Simon

Quote:

---

OK then, we should stop now. I am defining the scientific method in which it seeks to construct universal statements that describe an objective reality.

If you do not accept the notion of an objective reality, there is no point continuing.

---

What's the point in debate if everyone is agreeing with everything? I think a debate is to find the fundamental differences in our presumptions. I responded thus as you accused me for acting like a baby (in a realist sense) and I had to correct you. We're arguing if the objective reality is a useful notation at all, we've always done that, and so by assuming that the objective reality exists meaning accepting the notion of of objective reality and then prove its implications, this is known as deduction, and we don't have any other method.

Quote:

---

All of your points are logically valid but are supporting a point that seems less likely in my opinion.

---

They're not solipsistic, reality is a subset of my views, and thus you can't argue that its less likely, its on the contrary, more likely with less constraints

Quote:

---

What's the point in debate if everyone is agreeing with everything?

---

Well, an agreement needs to be reached on the definitions of the language with which we are using. Fundamental assumptions need to be agreed upon as well.

I am assuming a consistant reality independantly existing. I see the task of science as to reveal the true nature of this underlying reality in the form of universal statements.

If you consider the existence of a unicorn to be refuted merely because you can't actually see one at this particular moment, then I think our positions are irreconcilable.

I still insist that existential statements cannot be falsified. Even in your solopsist model (I shall call it that for want of a better term), the fact that you can't see a unicorn one moment doesn't preclude the possibility that you will in the next moment. And that's the point. If a statement doesn't preclude a particular experience, either at present or in the future, it is not prohibitive and therefore not falsifiable.

Now, the statement "Unicorns do not exist" is a falisifiable statement because it prohibits the experience of a unicorn. If such an experience is encountered, the statement can be considered falsified.

Quote:

---

Well, an agreement needs to be reached on the definitions of the language with which we are using. Fundamental assumptions need to be agreed upon as well.

---

I agree, thats the point of debate.

Quote:

---

(I shall call it that for want of a better term)

---

A solipsist believes that reality is a projection of your mind, I'm merely saying that its a possibility. Therefore i'm not solipsist, you could call me non-believer, because I don't believe in anything at all.

Quote:

---

the fact that you can't see a unicorn one moment doesn't preclude the possibility that you will in the next moment. And that's the point.

---

But what is the point in saying that something exists when it in the next moment can cease to do so? Why not have symmetry?

Quote:

---

A solipsist believes that reality is a projection of your mind, I'm merely saying that its a possibility. Therefore i'm not solipsist, you could call me non-believer, because I don't believe in anything at all.

---

You also said you didn't believe in an objective reality. That sounds like a solopsist to me.

I acknowledge the possibility of the solopsist notion although, for reasons previously stated, I do not think it is a notion worthy of further consideration.

Quote:

---

But what is the point in saying that something exists when it in the next moment can cease to do so? Why not have symmetry?

---

Well, what is the point in saying anything if, even if it is correct one moment, it may be wrong in the next? Take that argument to it's logical conclusion and you will do nothing but sit in a corner sucking your thumb.

The point is, many patterns we observe do seem to be repeatable. For this reason it is worth trying to learn what these patterns are so we may perdict their behaviour in the future. So what if some patterns are misleading? So what if some patterns break down and no longer apply. Many do, and for that reason alone, it is a worthwhile pursuit.

Simon

Quote:

---

Originally posted by simonm
You also said you didn't believe in an objective reality. That sounds like a solopsist to me.

---

Consider the analogy:
What differs a agnostic from an atheist?

Quote:

---

Well, what is the point in saying anything if, even if it is correct one moment, it may be wrong in the next?

---

deduction

Quote:

---

The point is, many patterns we observe do seem to be repeatable. For this reason it is worth trying to learn what these patterns are so we may perdict their behaviour in the future. So what if some patterns are misleading? So what if some patterns break down and no longer apply. Many do, and for that reason alone, it is a worthwhile pursuit.

---

That's exactly the point with deduction.

OK then, so we are in agreement.

Can I also assume you agree with the "non-refutability" of existential statements?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by simonm
Can I also assume you agree with the "non-refutability" of existential statements?

---

No, I don't see it useful. Let me take another example.

a farmer owns a barn, he knows that he has a cow in his barn, so he says

"There exist a cow in my barn"

And he can go falsificate it by going into the barn and then observe that there is no cow (maybe it was stolen). The existential statement that there exists a cow there, constrains the occurance of finding it empty.