Page 5 of 5
Re: Another Bishop Behaving Badly
Posted: Mon May 29, 2023 8:49 pm
by Marcus
JohnW wrote: ↑Mon May 29, 2023 8:05 pm
Marcus wrote: ↑Mon May 29, 2023 7:57 pm
That is an extremely complicated explanation for the relatively straightforward post-birth development of a typical newborn's body and brain.
Definitely. If you allow for spirituality, then you must necessarily accept some level of complication above and beyond what is typically explained by science. I guess that isn't strictly required. Sometimes concepts get simpler when you go deeper, but often not.
Yes, once you allow an element to be assumed that has no basis in fact, then de facto you can certainly argue that any nonfactual thing can be assumed. Such suspension of disbelief is common in science fiction, except that typically, at least in hard Sci fi, writers try to limit themselves to that one concept, and then be as realistic as possible. I enjoy reading those stories, but as an explanation for the literal development of a human? No, I don't feel it helps in understanding the process.
Re: Another Bishop Behaving Badly
Posted: Mon May 29, 2023 9:40 pm
by JohnW
Marcus wrote: ↑Mon May 29, 2023 8:49 pm
JohnW wrote: ↑Mon May 29, 2023 8:05 pm
Definitely. If you allow for spirituality, then you must necessarily accept some level of complication above and beyond what is typically explained by science. I guess that isn't strictly required. Sometimes concepts get simpler when you go deeper, but often not.
Yes, once you allow an element to be assumed that has no basis in fact, then de facto you can certainly argue that any nonfactual thing can be assumed. Such suspension of disbelief is common in science fiction, except that typically, at least in hard Sci fi, writers try to limit themselves to that one concept, and then be as realistic as possible. I enjoy reading those stories, but as an explanation for the literal development of a human? No, I don't feel it helps in understanding the process.
I would agree completely with you, but I think you may have overlooked one point. When discovering new things, don't you first have to assume something nonfactual and then see what the consequences are? In science this happens all the time. Scientists will assume something that has no evidence for it (and sometimes some evidence against it) and then see how that new theory changes things. Most of the time, it changes things too much, and it is clear that assumption can't be true based on current evidence. Other times, it help us tease out subtleties we have overlooked, explore new theories, and discover new things.
Granted, I'm leaving out a whole lot on setting up experiments to support or challenge your assumptions, but you get the idea. Exploring new things often requires us to suspend disbelief long enough to decide whether further exploration is warranted. Frankly, on this topic I don't really think further exploration is warranted, primarily because there is no clear experiment that can be done. Unfortunately, for spirituality that is often the answer. It is still fun to wonder out loud.
Re: Another Bishop Behaving Badly
Posted: Mon May 29, 2023 9:53 pm
by Marcus
JohnW wrote: ↑Mon May 29, 2023 9:40 pm
I would agree completely with you, but I think you may have overlooked one point. When discovering new things, don't you first have to assume something nonfactual and then see what the consequences are? In science this happens all the time. Scientists will assume something that has no evidence for it (and sometimes some evidence against it) and then see how that new theory changes things. Most of the time, it changes things too much, and it is clear that assumption can't be true based on current evidence. Other times, it help us tease out subtleties we have overlooked, explore new theories, and discover new things.
What?
"assume something nonfactual"???? No. That's not how science works.
Granted, I'm leaving out a whole lot on setting up experiments to support or challenge your assumptions, but you get the idea.
No, I don't.
... It is still fun to wonder out loud.
Sure. That's why I like to read hard Sci fi. Here's a great example:
Pat Cadigan:
The Girl-Thing Who Went Out For Sushi.
Re: Another Bishop Behaving Badly
Posted: Mon May 29, 2023 10:06 pm
by JohnW
Marcus wrote: ↑Mon May 29, 2023 9:53 pm
JohnW wrote: ↑Mon May 29, 2023 9:40 pm
I would agree completely with you, but I think you may have overlooked one point. When discovering new things, don't you first have to assume something nonfactual and then see what the consequences are? In science this happens all the time. Scientists will assume something that has no evidence for it (and sometimes some evidence against it) and then see how that new theory changes things. Most of the time, it changes things too much, and it is clear that assumption can't be true based on current evidence. Other times, it help us tease out subtleties we have overlooked, explore new theories, and discover new things.
What?
"assume something nonfactual"???? No. That's not how science works.
Last I checked that is exactly how science worked. Haven't you heard the old joke about the physicist and the spherical cow? A quick Google search will introduce you to the topic if you aren't familiar with it. Assuming nonfactual things is extremely useful in science and done all the time. If physicists didn't have their spherical cows, all of modern science would immediately collapse (yes, I'm being facetious).
I have a feeling we might have different definitions of nonfactual. I might be a little loose with the term and you might be a little strict.
Re: Another Bishop Behaving Badly
Posted: Tue May 30, 2023 12:20 am
by Physics Guy
We do often assume untrue things, in a sense—just not in the sense of supposing them to be true. We merely work out what the consequences would be, if these things were true. We consider them for the sake of argument, to see what they imply.
Sometimes the consequences turn out to be close enough to reality that we conclude there is some truth in the assumptions, after all. This is what we’re generally hoping to get from the exercise, actually. Even if the unrealistic models do turn out to describe an important piece of reality, though, they’re still not the whole truth, or entirely true. We never imagined they were. That’s not the kind of assuming we do.
Re: Another Bishop Behaving Badly
Posted: Tue May 30, 2023 1:55 am
by Marcus
JohnW wrote: ↑Mon May 29, 2023 10:06 pm
I have a feeling we might have different definitions of nonfactual. I might be a little loose with the term and you might be a little strict.
You are a lot loose with the term. My specialty is mathematical sciences, where we absolutely use stricter definitions, but even scientists in general are not so loose with definitions. See PG's great response:
We do often assume untrue things, in a sense—just not in the sense of supposing them to be true. We merely work out what the consequences would be, if these things were true. We consider them for the sake of argument, to see what they imply.
Sometimes the consequences turn out to be close enough to reality that we conclude there is some truth in the assumptions, after all. This is what we’re generally hoping to get from the exercise, actually. Even if the unrealistic models do turn out to describe an important piece of reality, though, they’re still not the whole truth, or entirely true. We never imagined they were. That’s not the kind of assuming we do.
Re: Another Bishop Behaving Badly
Posted: Tue May 30, 2023 2:29 am
by malkie
If I understand correctly, we may assume that the map represents, to some degree of accuracy, some aspects of the territory, perhaps including relationships between different "places" and "things". But we must not allow ourselves to suppose/believe that the map is the territory. That way lies disappointment, at the very least.
Re: Another Bishop Behaving Badly
Posted: Tue May 30, 2023 11:11 am
by Physics Guy
Right, and that's true even with the best theories we have. We're confident that they're not just going to be totally wrong. They definitely have a lot of truth in them.
We can't be sure, though, that they even give an accurate picture of what is basically going on in the world. Our best current theories may well only have truth in the way that Newtonian mechanics has truth, which is rather like the way in which an oil painting looks realistic. Even oil paintings that look photographically real from a distance are revealed by close inspection as mere blobs and smears of coloured gunk that don't have anything to do with the real structures of objects. In a similar way, we may have gotten many things right despite having everything totally wrong.
We all know that, but I think most scientists do believe that our best theories do at least have that large amount of truth in them. I suppose that this belief could be a member of the extended faith clan, but I think it must be a pretty peripheral member, because this kind of scientific belief, in a well-tested and accepted theory, is based on a lot of evidence.
What I think JohnW was talking about, when he wrote about making non-factual assumptions, was not that kind of belief in basic, bedrock theories, but rather our continual use of ad-hoc models that are deliberately wild over-simplifications of anything real. Theoretical physicists really do use such caricature models constantly; most carefully controlled physics experiments can also be seen as deliberate dumbing-down of Nature's complexity, to reveal things that can really only be seen in artificial conditions. Biologists and chemists also frequently investigate model reactions or organisms or structures that are chosen more for their own simplicity than for their accuracy in representing more complex versions.
In a certain sense that is being counterfactual. When we study something, it kind of becomes the whole world for us. We only think about it, and when we write up the paper, we write it as though this dumbed-down caricature thing was the ultimate answer to the ultimate question. In fact we know damn well that we've only bitten off a tiny piece of the world. We're hoping to extract some insight about the whole real world, at least by analogy, but fitting whatever it is into the bigger picture may be hard.
Our cocktail of motives in science still probably has a few dashes of myth-making in it. Maybe that gives it its kick. I still wouldn't really describe the pervasive scientific use of unrealistic models as assuming non-factual things. If we know that not even the best map is the territory, we're pretty sure not to confuse the territory with our practice sketches of mountains and rivers.
Re: Another Bishop Behaving Badly
Posted: Tue May 30, 2023 11:15 am
by Kishkumen
Physics Guy wrote: ↑Tue May 30, 2023 11:11 am
Right, and that's true even with the best theories we have. We're confident that they're not just going to be totally wrong. They definitely have a lot of truth in them.
We can't be sure, though, that they even give an accurate picture of what is basically going on in the world. Our best current theories may well only have truth in the way that Newtonian mechanics has truth, which is rather like the way in which an oil painting looks realistic. Even oil paintings that look photographically real from a distance are revealed by close inspection as mere blobs and smears of coloured gunk that don't have anything to do with the real structures of objects. In a similar way, we may have gotten many things right despite having everything totally wrong.
We all know that, but I think most scientists do believe that our best theories do at least have that large amount of truth in them. I suppose that this belief could be a member of the extended faith clan, but I think it must be a pretty peripheral member, because this kind of scientific belief, in a well-tested and accepted theory, is based on a lot of evidence.
What I think JohnW was talking about, when he wrote about making non-factual assumptions, was not that kind of belief in basic, bedrock theories, but rather our continual use of ad-hoc models that are deliberately wild over-simplifications of anything real. Theoretical physicists really do use such caricature models constantly; most carefully controlled physics experiments can also be seen as deliberate dumbing-down of Nature's complexity, to reveal things that can really only be seen in artificial conditions. Biologists and chemists also frequently investigate model reactions or organisms or structures that are chosen more for their own simplicity than for their accuracy in representing more complex versions.
In a certain sense that is being counterfactual. When we study something, it kind of becomes the whole world for us. We only think about it, and when we write up the paper, we write it as though this dumbed-down caricature thing was the ultimate answer to the ultimate question. In fact we know damn well that we've only bitten off a tiny piece of the world. We're hoping to extract some insight about the whole real world, at least by analogy, but fitting whatever it is into the bigger picture may be hard.
Our cocktail of motives in science still probably has a few dashes of myth-making in it. Maybe that gives it its kick. I still wouldn't really describe the pervasive scientific use of unrealistic models as assuming non-factual things. If we know that not even the best map is the territory, we're pretty sure not to confuse the territory with our practice sketches of mountains and rivers.
Your posts really are a treasure. Thank you for sharing this.
Re: Another Bishop Behaving Badly
Posted: Tue May 30, 2023 12:35 pm
by yellowstone123
I’m sorry if someone mentioned this but a lot of pogroms in the Russian pale of settlement where most Jews were confined to live were always referred to as Christ killers as Russian soldiers of the king and orthodoxy went on rampages for days beating and killing Jews. Golda Meir wrote My story where she immediately thinks of this in her childhood.