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

Notes from a Flat Earth Conference

willpatrick.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 169 posts

Re: Notes from a Flat Earth Conference

#151

Post by Rury »

lisper wrote: post #144
Rury wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everything starts with an assumption. However, in science, if the assumption's conclusion doesn't match the observed evidence, we reject our assumption as true, and we start with a new assumption. As so, science doesn't have a "foundational" assumption (because it's willing to change its assumptions). Rather, science subjects assumptions to evidence - not the other way around...

> science doesn't have a "foundational" assumption Yes, it does: it assumes that evidence is a reliable guide to truth.

Nonsense.

"evidence" and "truth" are very semantically related. By semantics, "evidence is a reliable guide to truth" is not nearly an assumption... as it is a logical definition.

It's a bit like saying: "it assumes reddish color indicates red".

EDIT: "Reliable" is the problem word here. Remove it from your statement, and it certainly is no longer an assumption. That said, I don't see where science inherently makes the assumption that evidence is reliable...

Re: Notes from a Flat Earth Conference

#152

Post by BrianOnHN »

RobRivera wrote: post #145
trumpersHateMe wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does this reply have any coherence at all or is it just me? It reads very similar to a response I received from the owners of a fishing website that I used to frequent when I questioned them about BLM.

>Username: trumpersHateMe Nice, novelty accounts on hn. That's lovely. I accrue some great insights from this sites river, but I should probably start curating my own river again. The insightful:judgemental signal-noise ratio is trending in a direction I simply fine unstimulating of productive discourse.

> insightful:judgemental signal-noise ratio

I think that's a worldwide phenomenon, not just HN.

Re: Notes from a Flat Earth Conference

#153

Post by lisper »

Rury wrote: post #151
lisper wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> science doesn't have a "foundational" assumption Yes, it does: it assumes that evidence is a reliable guide to truth.

Nonsense. "evidence" and "truth" are very semantically related. By semantics, "evidence is a reliable guide to truth" is not nearly an assumption... as it is a logical definition. It's a bit like saying: "it assumes reddish color indicates red". EDIT: "Reliable" is the problem word here. Remove it from your statement, and it certainly is no longer an assumption. That said, I don't see where science inherently makes t…

> it is nearly a logical definition.

Your having to hedge with "nearly" is an indication of the weakness of your position.

First, there is no such thing as a "logical definition". There are only definitions. Perhaps you meant "logical tautology" but in fact the idea that evidence is a reliable guide to truth is neither a definition nor a tautology, it is an assumption. And it is an assumption that is open to reasonable doubt. To wit:

> it assumes reddish color indicates red

It is far from clear that this is true. What does "reddish color" even mean? How can you define it without begging the question? How do you know that your subjective perception of "reddish color" is the same as mine?

A better example: solid objects are in fact not solid, they are mostly empty space. So the assumption that "solid appearance indicates solid" is actually false.

Re: Notes from a Flat Earth Conference

#154

Post by sunopener »

trumpersHateMe wrote: post #143
sunopener wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"It has been stated that a text coheres only if the world around is also coherent." Further reading: https://www.lhn.uni-hamburg.de/node/69.html That you'd ask yourself if this reply is coherent is a function of your own mind seeking meaning from what appears to be unresolved processing of a response you received from the owners of a phishing website. Given you used to frequent said site and received a text you deem…

So, if I understand this right, your love for yourself is so coherent that these ramblings are synonymous with coherence in your mind. In other words, your understanding of coherence is that it is subjective. Is that right?

You may be reaching(Watch yourself Love) for objective coherentism (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-coherence/)

Coherence arises out of Love.

Re: Notes from a Flat Earth Conference

#155

Post by simplify »

llimos wrote: post #132
simplify wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So if science leads you to the conclusion that life has no transcendent purpose (and it does) How does it lead to that? I feel like that's a false assumption that many people make, religious or not.

Science leads you to the conclusion that we are here as the result of a series of chance events. Not because of any "decision" to put us here. If we're all just here by fluke, and when we're gone we're gone entirely and completely , what transcendence could there be?

Science can only "lead" you to that conclusion if you already think in specific philosophical ways. In this case it sounds like you are presuming materialism.

Re: Notes from a Flat Earth Conference

#156

Post by simplify »

lisper wrote: post #112
simplify wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So if science leads you to the conclusion that life has no transcendent purpose (and it does) How does it lead to that? I feel like that's a false assumption that many people make, religious or not.

Do you have a theory of purpose that is consistent with the laws of physics? Because that would be a major breakthrough. All of the evidence (AFAICT) indicates that nature is utterly indifferent to our existence.

Nature may be indifferent to our existence, but we are not indifferent to nature. How is this?

Re: Notes from a Flat Earth Conference

#157

Post by toss1 »

esquivalience wrote: post #142
toss1 wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Considering that I AM a manufacturer, and also enjoy the company of restaurant servers and practice tipping well, that's a quite ignorant accusation. The point is that if I'm hiring for manufacturing, or restaurant, I don't want someone in a shop with many hazards who makes a major practice in their life to 1) ignore actual facts, and 2) actively foment mistrust of any 'authority'.

I'm Sorry. I had completely misunderstood your comment.

as did apparently many others :-/

Re: Notes from a Flat Earth Conference

#158

Post by trumpersHateMe »

sunopener wrote: post #154
trumpersHateMe wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, if I understand this right, your love for yourself is so coherent that these ramblings are synonymous with coherence in your mind. In other words, your understanding of coherence is that it is subjective. Is that right?

You may be reaching(Watch yourself Love) for objective coherentism ( https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-coherence/ ) Coherence arises out of Love.

Is this a landmark forum type of thing you're promoting?

Re: Notes from a Flat Earth Conference

#159

Post by Rury »

lisper wrote: post #153
Rury wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nonsense. "evidence" and "truth" are very semantically related. By semantics, "evidence is a reliable guide to truth" is not nearly an assumption... as it is a logical definition. It's a bit like saying: "it assumes reddish color indicates red". EDIT: "Reliable" is the problem word here. Remove it from your statement, and it certainly is no longer an assumption. That said, I don't see where science inherently makes t…

> it is nearly a logical definition. Your having to hedge with "nearly" is an indication of the weakness of your position. First, there is no such thing as a "logical definition". There are only definitions. Perhaps you meant "logical tautology" but in fact the idea that evidence is a reliable guide to truth is neither a definition nor a tautology, it is an assumption. And it is an assumption that is open to reasonab…

It's important to understand that definitions are not assumptions. Definitions and assumptions are two different things. Now, we could also define them to be the same thing if we wanted, but typically definitions aren't about truth. They're about meaning.

Now, if you'd rather use "logical tautology" that's fine by mean. It's close to what I meant. "Evidence" and "Truth" are very semantically related... so much that your statement earlier is almost a definition, not an assumption. By definition, Evidence is something that indicates truth. Again I think the word reliable does make the statement an assumption. But again, I don't see where science ever made the assumption that evidence is reliable...

As for your second example, it is not much better. I will again attempt to show you the problem with your argument.

>solid objects are in fact not solid, they are mostly empty space. So the assumption that "solid appearance indicates solid" is actually false

For your argument to hold, your definition of solid in your second statement must be incongruent. I'll try to show how.

> solid objects are in fact not solid, they are mostly empty space

Here you've tacked on some definition to the word solid. That added definition being: "they are mostly empty space". Now let's look at your next statement

>So the assumption that "solid appearance indicates solid" is actually false

This only logically true if you use two different definitions of the word solid. Otherwise your statement is nonsense, when substituting your implied definition of solid:

something that appears as not empty, but is in actually mostly empty space appearance indicates something that appears as not empty, but is in actually mostly empty space is actually false

Re: Notes from a Flat Earth Conference

#160

Post by rhn_mk1 »

lisper wrote: post #126
rhn_mk1 wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't leave us hanging! Where can we learn the answer?

Any Christian apologetics web site. Or your local church.

I was hoping for something more precise tbh. Christian apologetics web sites and local churches also offer answers to lots of questions I don't care about, so if you already sifted through them, I was hoping you could share that advantage with the broader public.
Post reply on HN