OMNILIBRIUM
  Rational Discussion of Controversial Topics


GO TO THE MAIN THREAD Sort By:


Fwiffo 18 May 2015 05:55 PM
62%

I think no but I am not totally sure.

It feels like the stances that people actually hold are more nuanced and have more moving parts than I expected them to have. It also feel like the space of hypothese is expanded. That is I kinda associate locking down what is true as collectign evidence that favours some fact out of the possible facts. That is if you tell me that the die is an even number it conveys information and makes me have truer beliefs on what the dices number is. But this is like discovering that there are 24 addiotional sides to the dice. It doesn't as such convey information yet it's not irrelevant to the issue of having better beliefs.

I am also reminded of how scientist could think that solving the issue whether particle or wave interpretaitons over quantum mechanics are better by making a test and see which one holds true. Prior to making the test you coudl believe that either the test support particles and doesn't support waves and things are stragithforward or the test support waves and do not support particles and things are stragihtforward. However after making the test this kind of assumptions turns out ot be false and the scientist are left to wonder "What do you mean they are not particles or waves?". It doesn't exactly tip the scales toward particles or waves but it does guarantee that things are not straight forward.

Searching the wonderland that is the internet I also encountered esoteric claims where they calimed that while humans have only probed 3 states of matter solid, liquid and gas, and were dabling on plasma the "true" nature consists of 96 states of matter (with the latter presumably being concerned with subquark strcutures). This kind of claim doesn't seem compelling but also my reaction is not just to say that it is false. I have trouble understanding what someone could mean with that kind of statement. ... read more

stars0
Reply


melian 19 May 2015 09:28 AM
70%

Why exactly 96? I would have assumed that it is turtles all the way down somewhere around 12. Further more I do not find myself being able to imagine any line of argument that would be effective against this kind of stance.

There is no effective logical argument against non-falsifiable or vague statements. Unless both people agree on the precise definition of the “states of matter” there is no right way to argue about their number.

For a constructive discussion, your opponent needs to meet two criteria:

1) Can the person formulate his/her opinions precisely enough to be falsifiable?
2) Is the person open-minded enough to accept it, if his/her opinion is shown to be wrong?

I came to realize that I occasionally failed the second test in the past and I’m not entirely confident of myself now either.


stars0
Reply


Fwiffo 19 May 2015 02:14 PM
56%

The issue there isn't that "state of matter" would be ambigiously defined. It's kinda of the similar kind of statement that reality might have 11 dimensions. Based on ordinary life experince you would say that anything above 4 is obviously false and even 4 is strectching it. I got the experession that if one would ask he could tell detailed tales of these forms and how they differ (where it doesn't equate into "technology release"). But that is a little like learning about the various planes of existence of hindu religion. Whether the thing posed is detailed or not doesn't really have direct import on whether it is likely or not.

stars0
Reply


melian 19 May 2015 02:53 PM
72%

It's kinda of the similar kind of statement that reality might have 11 dimensions.

Are you making fun of M-theorists? Well, I don't trust these guys either.
Still, just because something is counterintuitive does not mean it’s wrong. Relativity and quantum physics were also counterintuitive.
Whether the thing posed is detailed or not doesn't really have direct import on whether it is likely or not.

There is a difference between detailed and unambiguous.
But that is a little like learning about the various planes of existence of hindu religion.

Religious doctrines are generally non falsifiable. Scientific theories should be.


stars0
Reply


Fwiffo 19 May 2015 03:07 PM
56%

I am not making fun of M-theorits. I am using them as example of a statement assumed to be very proper and from pretty trusted sources still being suspicious in this regard.

What difference between "detailed" and "unambigious" is there that is relevant to this issue? Usually if a thing can mean multiple things it does so because there is not enough detail to differentiate between the possibilities.

A respected community that is associated with white jackets doesn't have the monopoly on unambigious statements. It should not be a matter that my priests are better than their priests. Saying that someting isn't defined because it doesn't look "mathy" enough misses the whole point of semantics. Those math symbols, they are supposed to like... mean stuff... that could in principle be spoken in english.

stars0
Reply


ChristianKl 19 May 2015 05:48 AM
65%

Learning that other people have more nuanced views than you thought beforehand looks to me like genuine progress.

stars0
Reply