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

Was Paul Feyerabend Really Science's "Worst Enemy"? (2016)

blogs.scientificamerican.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 96 posts

Re: Was Paul Feyerabend Really Science's "Worst Enemy"? (2016)

#81

Post by lidHanteyk »

empath75 wrote: post #29
lidHanteyk wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This has helped me understand why folks think that I'm so often trolling: I wish for my opinion to be shown silly, because I'm so confident that it is a stupid opinion, because all of my opinions are stupid silly opinions. I would much rather have everything laid out, examined, and shown not to be what it is not, than to suffer under political rhetoric. It is possible to be intellectually curious and also not a tanki…

> This has helped me understand why folks think that I'm so often trolling: I wish for my opinion to be shown silly, because I'm so confident that it is a stupid opinion, because all of my opinions are stupid silly opinions. If you're not telling people that this is your purpose, then you are not arguing in good faith. If you're playing devil's advocate, you should say so. There's a big difference between, for exampl…

Alright, let's take this for a test drive, then: I don't really think that good-faith argument exists, in general.

The idea of good faith is old and important in law; without good faith, it would be hard to enter into contracts. The underlying emotional content that we are reaching for when we try to embrace good faith is the emotion of authenticity.

However, I don't think that people are capable of being authentic. In order to be authentic, people must intend what they are saying and doing, and I am not sure that people can have internal worlds which are rich enough to enable authenticity. I certainly believe that people believe that they are acting in good faith, when they claim it, but I cannot verify that people are indeed good-faith actors.

In the olden days, good faith was achieved with a token, a bonafides of some sort. This is because, even in the olden days, it was well-understood that one cannot simply take people at their word when people say that they are arguing in good faith. This suggests that people have known and understood for a long time that good faith doesn't really exist.

Further, I think that when the rules say, "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith," they mean that we must construct steelmen before commenting. After all, giving good-faith assumptions to bad-faith arguments would be a waste of effort.

For your edification, you should know that I don't like to argue my positions.

Re: Was Paul Feyerabend Really Science's "Worst Enemy"? (2016)

#82

Post by ggm »

andrepd wrote: post #7
ggm wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are two tropes here: the dwm, and the whiner. Why do you think your whining is better than their pejorative?

Don't start a flame war.

You're right. I regretted posting it shortly after.

Re: Was Paul Feyerabend Really Science's "Worst Enemy"? (2016)

#83

Post by 345218435 »

side note: feyerabend is a variation of the german word „feierabend“ which consists of the two nouns „feier“ and „abend“, „party“ and „evening“ respectively. we use that word for „home time“ after the work day. i.e. „feierabend! i’ll call it a day and go home“.

Re: Was Paul Feyerabend Really Science's "Worst Enemy"? (2016)

#84

Post by Yessing »

Yessing wrote: post #9
ggm wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are two tropes here: the dwm, and the whiner. Why do you think your whining is better than their pejorative?

the dwm? "Desktop Window Manager"?

to clarify I'm asking about the meaning of dwm. The only term that I'm familiar with, and that shows up in google is Desktop Window Manager.

Re: Was Paul Feyerabend Really Science's "Worst Enemy"? (2016)

#85

Post by ordu »

ukj wrote: post #77
jnwatson wrote: post #48

Feyerabend's work reminds me a bit of Alvin Plantinga's. As a young objectivist at university, I had the idealistic idea that if two people could use logic and science to determine certain facts, they could settle any disagreement, even moral ones. However, science is built upon certain assumed first principles, like causation and other minds sharing your reality. Plantinga argued that one could start with additional…

Have you heard of Aumann’s agreement theorem? [1] Consensus is possible, provided that the interlocutor have a shared goal and maximize for information exchange. Otherwise, the whole notion of discussing one’s “beliefs“ is philosophical (non-empirical) nonsense. If I shut my mouth there is no way to empirically determine whether “I believe in God or not”. I don’t have beliefs - I have methods of various degrees of ef…

> I don’t have beliefs - I have methods of various degrees of effectiveness that get me what I want.

It is a self-contradictory claim. You believe in your methods. You believe that your vision works by means of your methods, but how do you know this? Take a look at a your hand, all your mind get from it is a bunch of "pixels" from your retina, and by some means your mind construct a mental representation named "hand". How your mind had learnt to do it? Did it use bayesian learning or maybe it used some other mistaken method and your vision fools you? Maybe in the basis of your bayesianism lays totally non-bayesian vision? Maybe information about reality you have is not facts?

You fool yourself believing that you use bayesian reasoning. Mostly your mind thinks for yourself by itself, all you can do is to get into your consiousness some small part of reasoning and to check it with bayes. No one proved that it is possible to build mind based on the bayesianism. Our computational resources are weak for this. You cannot be a bayesian mind while you have no ability to reflect all the reasoning of your mind, starting with individual "pixels" from your retina as informational input and ending with claims like "there is no God".

So you are believing that you are bayesian mind, and therefore Aumann's theorem is applicable to you.

Re: Was Paul Feyerabend Really Science's "Worst Enemy"? (2016)

#86

Post by ukj »

ordu wrote: post #85
ukj wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you heard of Aumann’s agreement theorem? [1] Consensus is possible, provided that the interlocutor have a shared goal and maximize for information exchange. Otherwise, the whole notion of discussing one’s “beliefs“ is philosophical (non-empirical) nonsense. If I shut my mouth there is no way to empirically determine whether “I believe in God or not”. I don’t have beliefs - I have methods of various degrees of ef…

> I don’t have beliefs - I have methods of various degrees of effectiveness that get me what I want. It is a self-contradictory claim. You believe in your methods. You believe that your vision works by means of your methods, but how do you know this? Take a look at a your hand, all your mind get from it is a bunch of "pixels" from your retina, and by some means your mind construct a mental representation named "hand"…

That's generally how all the Philosophy language-games work.

You claim that I've contradicted myself and then you go onto re-describe my argument in your vocabulary. Ex falso sequitur quodlibet...

You are imposing your language/vocabulary onto me, rather than adopting mine, while failing to realise that language itself is just another instrument. I use it for communication.

Not only are you imposing your language onto me, you are trying to impose your logic onto me also - failing to realise that logic is also just an instrument.

And in so far as you seem to care about contradictions - your dogma/religion is the 'Law' of non-contradiction. It's a false God, a man-made authority. Trivially side-stepped with either Dialetheism or Paraconsistent logic.

  Do I contradict myself? Very well, then, I contradict myself; I am large -- I contain multitudes. --Walt Whitman
Bayesianism, Intuitioinism, Structuralism, Counter-factualism, Reflection, Introspection, Self-reference, methodism, particularism (obviously the list is incomplete) are just some of the tools (formal languages/models - used for communicating with other humans, not to be mistaken for ontologies) in my toolbox. How and when I might use any particular instrument is context-dependent and is largely up to me. It's purposeful and intentional.

The rest of the time my mind does whatever it does all by itself - I can't tell you what the autopilot 'believes'.

And I am not here to be persuaded (by you or anybody) that your way is better than my way - I can change my mind all by myself if you give me the relevant information. That's how I use introspection/reflection.

Re: Was Paul Feyerabend Really Science's "Worst Enemy"? (2016)

#87

Post by ordu »

ukj wrote: post #86
ordu wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don’t have beliefs - I have methods of various degrees of effectiveness that get me what I want. It is a self-contradictory claim. You believe in your methods. You believe that your vision works by means of your methods, but how do you know this? Take a look at a your hand, all your mind get from it is a bunch of "pixels" from your retina, and by some means your mind construct a mental representation named "hand"…

That's generally how all the Philosophy language-games work. You claim that I've contradicted myself and then you go onto re-describe my argument in your vocabulary. Ex falso sequitur quodlibet... You are imposing your language/vocabulary onto me, rather than adopting mine, while failing to realise that language itself is just another instrument. I use it for communication. Not only are you imposing your language ont…

> You are imposing your language/vocabulary onto me, rather than adopting mine, while failing to realise that language itself is just another instrument. I use it for communication.

You mentioned Aumann's theorem, so it seemed for me that you are bayesian thinker.

> Bayesianism, Intuitioinism, counter-factualism, methodism, particularism (obviously the list is incomlete) are just some of the tools in my toolbox. How and when I might use any particular instrument is up to me.

No, there comes another question: how you might claim that Aumann's theorem is applicable to you, if you are not a strictly bayesian? Maybe logic is also just a one tool of many, and can be rejected when you feel like that? Have you formal rules to judge when some or other tool might be used or rejected? If so, do you believe in this rules to work?

All I want to show, that you cannot reason without some beliefs you take as granted. So your claim that you have no beliefs is false.

Re: Was Paul Feyerabend Really Science's "Worst Enemy"? (2016)

#88

Post by ukj »

ordu wrote: post #87
ukj wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's generally how all the Philosophy language-games work. You claim that I've contradicted myself and then you go onto re-describe my argument in your vocabulary. Ex falso sequitur quodlibet... You are imposing your language/vocabulary onto me, rather than adopting mine, while failing to realise that language itself is just another instrument. I use it for communication. Not only are you imposing your language ont…

> You are imposing your language/vocabulary onto me, rather than adopting mine, while failing to realise that language itself is just another instrument. I use it for communication. You mentioned Aumann's theorem, so it seemed for me that you are bayesian thinker. > Bayesianism, Intuitioinism, counter-factualism, methodism, particularism (obviously the list is incomlete) are just some of the tools in my toolbox. How…

>You mentioned Aumann's theorem, so it seemed for me that you are bayesian thinker.

As with all things in Logic/Formal languages - the conclusions are true IF you accept the axioms. The CHOICE to accept (or reject) the axioms (read: play the game according its set of normative rules) is up to you. It's cooperative game theory.

Aumann's theorem applies to me in as much as my goal in any conversation/interaction is to optimise for consensus-building - to this end, I will happily abandon my language and adopt my interlocutors' (if they are not comfortable doing so). If my interlocutors understand how 'the game' works and are themselves comfortable using language effectively/metaphorically/constructively/adaptively in real-time then there's no need for compromise on my part.

It seems to me that you are playing a non-cooperative game. You are trying to 'be right. That signals to me that you aren't even playing by the same rules as me.

So if you dislike the word 'methods' and you would much prefer me to use the word 'beliefs' when talking to you - I will happily do that (after I've made my point).

>All I want to show, that you cannot reason without some beliefs you take as granted. So your claim that you have no beliefs is false.

Then it's false. So what? You seem like you belong to the Church of Truth also...

  All models are wrong, but some are useful --George Box
Since you are the one making positive claims about 'my beliefs', then (by the rules I am guessing you subscribe to, but I don't) the burden of proof is on you?

Re: Was Paul Feyerabend Really Science's "Worst Enemy"? (2016)

#89

Post by ukj »

ordu wrote: post #87
ukj wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's generally how all the Philosophy language-games work. You claim that I've contradicted myself and then you go onto re-describe my argument in your vocabulary. Ex falso sequitur quodlibet... You are imposing your language/vocabulary onto me, rather than adopting mine, while failing to realise that language itself is just another instrument. I use it for communication. Not only are you imposing your language ont…

> You are imposing your language/vocabulary onto me, rather than adopting mine, while failing to realise that language itself is just another instrument. I use it for communication. You mentioned Aumann's theorem, so it seemed for me that you are bayesian thinker. > Bayesianism, Intuitioinism, counter-factualism, methodism, particularism (obviously the list is incomlete) are just some of the tools in my toolbox. How…

I believe that I don't have any beliefs.

You might recognise the above as a manifestation of the Liar's paradox.

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

Depending on your predisposition, that's either a contradiction or infinite regress.

Either way - you can't decide the truth (or falsity) value of the sentence.

That's where the Religion of Logic/Truth usually leads to - undecidability.

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

Re: Was Paul Feyerabend Really Science's "Worst Enemy"? (2016)

#90

Post by ordu »

ukj wrote: post #88
ordu wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You are imposing your language/vocabulary onto me, rather than adopting mine, while failing to realise that language itself is just another instrument. I use it for communication. You mentioned Aumann's theorem, so it seemed for me that you are bayesian thinker. > Bayesianism, Intuitioinism, counter-factualism, methodism, particularism (obviously the list is incomlete) are just some of the tools in my toolbox. How…

>You mentioned Aumann's theorem, so it seemed for me that you are bayesian thinker. As with all things in Logic/Formal languages - the conclusions are true IF you accept the axioms. The CHOICE to accept (or reject) the axioms (read: play the game according its set of normative rules) is up to you. It's cooperative game theory. Aumann's theorem applies to me in as much as my goal in any conversation/interaction is to…

> Aumann's theorem applies to me in as much as my goal in any conversation/interaction is to optimise for consensus-building

But Aumann's theorem is true for rationalists only. I checked wikipedia artice, and seems that it is not just about bayesian rationality as I thought, it is about any rationality. Why do you think, that you are rational agent? All the psychology shows that people are irrational beings.

> It seems to me that you are playing a non-cooperative game. > That signals to me that you aren't even playing by the same rules as me.

Maybe I am. Why should I? What could I gain from being cooperative in this particular case? What could I gain from following your rules?

> You are trying to 'be right.

No, I'm trying to make a point. I'm not interested in the search for consensus. I need no consensus. I made a point. You have a choice to understand it or to not understand. You have a choice to agree or to disagree. I'm interested in your understanding, but I'm not interested in your agreement. Your disagreement is much more fun, it could be much more educational for me. It is more educational for you also, though it is more about your gain, then mine. An agreement is boring and useless.

> So if you dislike the word 'methods'

No, it is misunderstanding. I'm trying to say, that methods are also beliefs, or they based on beliefs.

> Then it's false. So what? You seem like you belong to the Church of Truth also... > All models are wrong, but some are useful --George Box

Of course all models are wrong, but some are useful. Moreover, our mind can work only with models. Logic is one of such a models, it can simplify a lot of cases by reducing them into true/false statements. Either you have beliefs or you have not. Isn't it? Or your point that it is not so simple and dichotomy cannot capture all relevant properties of the problem? Could you propose some other model which we can use to speak about your beliefs that you take as granted and do not question?

> Since you are the one making positive claims about 'my beliefs', then (by the rules I am guessing you subscribe to, but I don't) the burden of proof is on you?

I cannot prove that, because to prove I need to find an example of your belief. It is a hard work by itself and it is more so, because English is not my native language. But I can give you tools to find your beliefs which you had not questioned yet. Dig your methods, they are themselves based on assumptions.

Post reply on HN