Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Are your beliefs consistent? Take the test...

philosophersnet.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 84 posts

Re: Are your beliefs consistent? Take the test...

#51

Post by adam-a »

aaronblohowiak wrote: post #33
cema wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the authors did not think of all possibilities. "Arguing back" might help them to improve the logical engine. I guess what I mean to say is that, rather than arguing back, we could contact them with suggestions. Eg one thing they did not seem to consider is (my case) some of the implications of differences between the natural and the supernatural (say, God and the hypothetical Loch Ness monster).

uhmmmmmm, how would the Loch Ness monster be any less natural than God? ;)

I got tripped up on this question too and I agree with the comment above. Loch Ness is a physical lake and Nessie, though perhaps a musical dinosaur, is allegedly tangible and physically there. It's not possible to get a submarine and go searching through God's lake because he probably doesn't live in one and if he did he may well decide to turn invisible just as you got close.

Re: Are your beliefs consistent? Take the test...

#52

Post by loup-vaillant »

revolvingcur wrote: post #43
loup-vaillant wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You play with the words too much here. Any theory is a mere model, except fundamental physics. But the evolutionary theory is accurate enough to be called "true", don't you think?

What makes fundamental physics an exception to your rule? How fundamental would a "model" need to be to no longer be a model? It seems to me that the explicit purpose of physics is to create ever more detailed models of what happens next at various degree of detail, but there's no "there" down there to ultimately declare as actual reality, just our empirical descriptions (models).

EDIT: I actually agree with you. Maybe I shouldn't have made an exception of physics in the first place.

That's because fundamental physics seeks to be the ultimate explanation for everything. (A bit like 42 :-) As far as I know, every other theories about our world are meant to be tractable models, instead of the real thing. Evolution theory is an example. Fluid mechanics is another. We could try to explain them in terms of string theory, but that would hardly help us in finding new fossils, or build a safe plane.

Re: Are your beliefs consistent? Take the test...

#53

Post by harrys »

harrys wrote: post #45

this is very logical. Well built and programed. But humans are not logical. You ask questions for the reason to contradict. The fact the Sutcliffe raped people based on that God told him to...Uhm I dont think so. Ask your self this, if this "God" told him to do so; then who is this God? If you read in the bible it sais who God is. And that is not who God is, love does not harm any one. God did not tell him this, unfo…

A proof only becomes a proof after the social act of “accepting it as a proof”.

Re: Are your beliefs consistent? Take the test...

#54

Post by ThomPete »

loup-vaillant wrote: post #52
revolvingcur wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes fundamental physics an exception to your rule? How fundamental would a "model" need to be to no longer be a model? It seems to me that the explicit purpose of physics is to create ever more detailed models of what happens next at various degree of detail, but there's no "there" down there to ultimately declare as actual reality, just our empirical descriptions (models).

EDIT: I actually agree with you. Maybe I shouldn't have made an exception of physics in the first place. That's because fundamental physics seeks to be the ultimate explanation for everything. (A bit like 42 :-) As far as I know, every other theories about our world are meant to be tractable models, instead of the real thing. Evolution theory is an example. Fluid mechanics is another. We could try to explain them in…

That they seek it doesn't mean it's so.

Kuhn and Popper for instance is in disagreement about what making a model more precise means.

Seeking a model that is without doubt is simply fools gold if you ask me. It's assuming certainty where none really exist.

Re: Are your beliefs consistent? Take the test...

#55

Post by loup-vaillant »

ThomPete wrote: post #47
loup-vaillant wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You play with the words too much here. Any theory is a mere model, except fundamental physics. But the evolutionary theory is accurate enough to be called "true", don't you think?

I don't think it makes any sense to call evolutionary theory for true. It's completely missing the point. If anything evolutionary theory is useful to explain phenomena it is not a true explanation of phenomena. There are no true explanations only consistent explanations branching out from the premise. Physics is no exception. It's a model to explain phenomena and predict outcomes which are always temporary.

When 2 scientist talk about something "true", they never mean "no way this could be even slightly false". They mean either "given our present information, this is very very probably true" or "this is very very accurate". Most of the time they mean both.

Now, if you want to make a practical decision, in a relatively limited amount of time, you will most likely treat "most probably true, and very very accurate" statement as just true.

So OK, there is no "true". But in practical terms, this is only a stretch, an abuse of language. For practical purposes, this is good enough. If you think it's not, go invent a short label that precisely means what you want, and make people use that. Good luck.

Re: Are your beliefs consistent? Take the test...

#56

Post by wazoox »

scotty79 wrote: post #8
Deestan wrote: post #2

A useful and somewhat though-provoking test. But, it feels really frustrating not being able to argue back; especially when the test starts claiming logical conclusions regarding my beliefs and opinions based on technical definitions ("irrevocable proof", "justifiable", etc) that I disagree with. :-)

No hits. My two bullets: ## You stated earlier that evolutionary theory is essentially true. However, you have now claimed that it is foolish to believe in God without certain, irrevocable proof that she exists. The problem is that there is no certain proof that evolutionary theory is true - even though there is overwhelming evidence that it is true. So it seems that you require certain, irrevocable proof for God's e…

I bit exactly the same. However I feel somewhat cheated by the first "bullet", because of the way the question's formulated. I actually don't think that you need "irrevocable proof" to believe in God any more than to believe in something else. However we actually need extremely strong evidence in both cases; evolution has very strong evidence in its favour, while there isn't any evidence that God exists.

Same thing for the second bullet : I stated that God has the freedom to achieve the logically impossible, BUT I don't think that it carries any weight because God doesn't exist and therefore it is all empty chit-chatting anyway. So rational discourse on the subject of God is of course somewhat hard to take seriously anyway, after a certain point.

Re: Are your beliefs consistent? Take the test...

#57

Post by loup-vaillant »

ThomPete wrote: post #54
loup-vaillant wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

EDIT: I actually agree with you. Maybe I shouldn't have made an exception of physics in the first place. That's because fundamental physics seeks to be the ultimate explanation for everything. (A bit like 42 :-) As far as I know, every other theories about our world are meant to be tractable models, instead of the real thing. Evolution theory is an example. Fluid mechanics is another. We could try to explain them in…

That they seek it doesn't mean it's so. Kuhn and Popper for instance is in disagreement about what making a model more precise means. Seeking a model that is without doubt is simply fools gold if you ask me. It's assuming certainty where none really exist.

> That they seek it doesn't mean it's so.

True. I got carried away.

> Seeking a model that is without doubt is simply fools gold

Seeking something doesn't mean we assume that we will find it. The fact that it's unattainable doesn't mean it isn't worth pursuing. Like perfection.

Re: Are your beliefs consistent? Take the test...

#58

Post by ThomPete »

loup-vaillant wrote: post #57
ThomPete wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That they seek it doesn't mean it's so. Kuhn and Popper for instance is in disagreement about what making a model more precise means. Seeking a model that is without doubt is simply fools gold if you ask me. It's assuming certainty where none really exist.

> That they seek it doesn't mean it's so. True. I got carried away. > Seeking a model that is without doubt is simply fools gold Seeking something doesn't mean we assume that we will find it. The fact that it's unattainable doesn't mean it isn't worth pursuing. Like perfection.

It might just be a matter of semantics or taste, but what about just seeking better predictability. How is that leaving us worse of?

Truth, objective, rational etc. is covered with all sorts of baggage.

Re: Are your beliefs consistent? Take the test...

#59

Post by latentflip »

loup-vaillant wrote: post #41

I got a direct hit because of a contradiction between question 5 (I answered true) and question 16 (I answered false). Actually question 16 strikes me as meaningless. If god "creates" something, that something must be a physical thing, which potentially influences our world (unlike the Dragon in the proverbial garage). That, or I misunderstood the meaning of "create". Squares and circles are not physical things. They…

I had exactly the same hit, and thought the same as you.

Perhaps I am naïve, but short of manipulating my neurons directly there is no way a god could reconfigure the universe around me such that 1+1=72. And if a god were to manipulate my neurons directly, it would say nothing about the truthfulness of the statement.

Re: Are your beliefs consistent? Take the test...

#60

Post by ugh »

loup-vaillant wrote: post #41

I got a direct hit because of a contradiction between question 5 (I answered true) and question 16 (I answered false). Actually question 16 strikes me as meaningless. If god "creates" something, that something must be a physical thing, which potentially influences our world (unlike the Dragon in the proverbial garage). That, or I misunderstood the meaning of "create". Squares and circles are not physical things. They…

I don't think you really believe that god can do anything. Wouldn't a god that can do anything truly be able to do anything, even logically inconsistent things?

You to me seem to believe that god can do a great many things but not anything. Your answer to 5 doesn't seem to be your actual belief.

Post reply on HN