Eise

I think it is important too see what Ockham's razor is: it is a heuristic principle, not a criterion for truth. A fine modern translation would be that if you have two theories that explain exactly the same empirical phenomena, then the one which less assumptions is the better one. As an example: the Lorentz transformations were already derived by... eh... Lorentz, and later again by Poincaré, and again later by Einstein. But Einstein's version comes away with only 2 assumptions (relativity and the invariance of the speed of light). But there is an ambiguity in the different formulations of Ockham's razor. If you take the one mostly attributed to Ockham: "Entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity" it is about what we assume about reality. If we can explain phenomena without using God, angels, the luminiferious aether, or a preferred frame of reference, then they should not play any role in our theories. On the other side, we have such vague formulations, like "Plurality must never be posited without necessity". We could also apply, as I did above, on the number of assumptions of your theory. An example where both versions come in conflict is the multiverse. On one side, it posits the existence of many (infinite?) separate universes which is against "Entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity"; on the other side it may have less assumptions, because we do not have to explain why the laws of nature are as we find them in our universe. And then there is Einstein's formulation, something like "A scientific theory must be as simple as possible, but not simpler.". So as a heuristic principle, I would translate it as: if you want to explain a phenomenon, then start with the simplest possible hypothesis; if it doesn't work out, take a more complicated hypothesis, etc. So it is a way of selecting theories you want to probe first. But in all cases, experiment and observation decide if you are right or not. If a complicated theory works empirically, and simpler ones don't, the complicated theory is preferred.

That is wrong already. Assuming you mean that 'objects you drop from a tower, without pushing them in any direction', due to the earth's rotation, objects will not fall exactly straight. The top of a (high) tower has a higher speed then the surface of the earth. So an object will follow a curve, closing in to a straight line more and more during its fall. In your citation there is no mentioning of forces, only of movements. The example I gave above might be measurable, but I think that the rest of the movements does not contribute big enough to the deviation of a straight line to be measured.

What!? It was made for you!

Just to add my 2 cents: as a philosopher, I of course am aware of the many topics in philosophy. However, even philosophers should also be firmly rooted in practical life. And, as said, the philosophy forum is not the most busy one. If MSCs proposal would be implemented, I assume most of the subfora would stay empty, and indeed, the administrators would get the extra job to see if something is ethics or meta-ethics, social philosophy or philosophical anthropology, logic or meta-logic, cognitive philosophy or philosophy of science etc. etc. I am perfectly happy with the present categorisation, pure for practical reasons. On the other side, having a subforum in 'The Lounge' on Sculptures made of almonds is perfectly justified. 😋

Testing relativity formulas for the thread which name we do not mention... \[ t = \frac{{t}' + \frac{v{x}'}{c^{2}}}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^{2}}{c^{2}}}} \] \[t = \frac{{0} + {0.8} . {0.6} }{\sqrt{1 - {0.8 ^{2}}}}\]

Where did Pascal got the time to write such things down? According to most other philosophers, philosophy only exists in cultures where people have spare time. E.g. the Greeks had slaves, which gave their masters time to reflect on nature, society and themselves. People who have no time could be: full in the struggle of life: all their time is used to get food, shelter, and stay safe for any danger totally unaware that their world could be different as it is, i.e. accept the culture or society in which they live as a 'naturally given' and conform to to it without reflecting (My disclaimer could be extended from science to more or less all of life ("There is no such thing as philosophy-free science; there is only science whose philosophical baggage is taken on board without examination.")). Ideologically shaped societal dogmas are seen as 'natural', or 'obviously the best principles to live by'.

Here, a mirror...

That is a pretty useless example of very bad philosophy. you state that only facts matter in life you state that only numerically quantifiable observations count as facts And that without even one simple argument. This reduces your viewpoint to an irrational (and none quantifiable and non-factual) mental jerk.

Well, at least cladking has shown us extensively one example of bad philosophy. Ill informed about what science and philosophy are, or better, what scientists and philosophers do, cladking vents his ideas about them. To look back one the criteria I proposed earlier in this thread: Nope Hardly Nope Nope. Done.

You can read: o Yes o No Two trees are explicitly mentioned: the tree of life, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. 'Accepted as true' is not the same as 'true'. Therefore no science should stick to axioms, and philosophy neither. Taking them temporary for granted is ok, but one should always be prepared to drop these 'axioms'. I slowly get the impression you have no idea how science and philosophy work.

I interpreted a text, not what somebody once might really have meant, said or written down. Eh? I claimed it was the New International Version. I got it from www.biblegateway.com, where it obviously is the default. I agree, except maybe with that 'it is fundamental'. But that also means axioms have no fixed place in science and philosophy. Honest observations and reflection can lead you anywhere, and axioms would work out as a dogmas, blocking ways to real understanding. Axioms surely can have a place in theory development: assume something to be true, and find out where the theory leads you too. (Maybe to nonsense, so then your axiom was wrong, or your theory is wrong, or both).

That would be the death of most sciences. As an antidote to such ideas I recommend to read Feyerabend, Against Method. And equating methodology and metaphysics seems also wrong to me. Compare: methodological and metaphysical naturalism (the only source of knowledge is nature vs. there are no supernatural phenomena) methodological and metaphysical behaviourism (the only way to study people's minds is by observing their behaviour vs. there are no minds, only behaviour) That excludes mathematics, astronomy, history, literature, just to name a few. I highlighted the important words for you: So, no, what you wrote above is not a possible correct interpretation of Genesis 2:9. Maybe something like the red and blue pills... What axioms? Philosophy is trying to understand thinking. In the first place how we actually think (depends of course a lot about what we are thinking: natural sciences, politics, 'Geisteswissenschaften', ethics etc). Then how we should think, to come to valid conclusions. And then how we should think to live a good life. Your view on philosophy is a bit one-sided. I highly doubt that. But to find out, one should ... guess what.

New International Version, Genesis 2:9:

My interpretation of the paradise story contains a certain wisdom: 'knowing' the difference between right and wrong, good and evil, led to the banishment of Adam and Eve from paradise. What is 'bad science'? E.g the development of nuclear fission: it gave us nuclear energy and an arms race. Or is 'bad science' science that is methodologically unsound? If the latter, then bad philosophy would be that you stop with an honest investigation when you do not like the result of your reasoning.

Wondering what definition you are using. Make a comparison with science: would you only accept science that gives the answers you like? Keeping a viewpoint fixed is the end of philosophy. Any honest investigation can lead to results you do not like. But faking truths might be worse in the end. Take the idea of God, who gives people a purpose and the right rules of conduct for people to be happy. Wouldn't that lead to the highest possible good? So we keep that fixed and do not discuss this? Is that philosophy? Or dogma?

No posting of mine was ever moved to speculations or trash. And as of this writing, I am not banned... And if you think you base your life on facts only you are deceiving yourself.

Forgot this: pragmatism is a philosophical viewpoint.

Now that is an example of bad philosophy... And a pretty good example of my present disclaimer: With other words: what you say is a philosophical remark. E.g. it is based on the assumption that only empirical facts matter in life. But that itself is not an empirically verified position, so, according to you, it distracts from true knowledge. Your position is self-refuting. As to the question of the poll: of course there is good and bad philosophy. But we should keep Strange's distinction in mind: 'philosophy' as a 'philosophical theory', i.e. the contents of what a philosopher is saying about the subject at hand; and 'philosophy' as an activity. Which of course agrees more or less with the same distinction in science. Good philosophy, in modern times: Is well informed about relevant science, culture and politics Takes into account other viewpoints about the topic at hand Confirms or refutes other viewpoints with good arguments, i.e. arguments that are relevant and well supported by sciences and other well argued philosophical viewpoints Is extremely aware of the methods it uses to argue for a certain position. Bad philosophy: Only expresses opinions without arguing Uses arguments that are already refuted by others Confuses scientific speculations with philosophy The specialty with philosophy which distinguishes it from sciences is that in science the domain of knowledge it tries to gather differs from the (transcendental...) subject (i.e the one that observes, experiments, and expresses ideas about the object) of the domain. A physicist investigating certain phenomena does not investigate herself. As I said elsewhere here, the object of physics is not physics: it is the natural world as we observe it. As soon as physicists investigate physics, they are philosophising. Philosophy is essential reflective: it tries to understand our thinking with thinking, just as the physicist thinking about physics.

One example of what I mean: Major Study Casts Doubt on COVID-19 Herd Immunity After Patient Antibodies Disappear From the article:

This is what is worrying me. We know that about one third of all common colds are caused by some corona virus (I thought I read somewhere that there are 3 main Corona stems that can cause common cold). Assuming that people in Western (and Northern) countries get a cold a few times per year, a gross estimate tells me that people get the common cold at least once in 3 years of the same corona virus. So no long lasting immunity. So wouldn't that mean that a vaccine also is effective for at most 3 years (probably less)? Add to this another statistic: that the common cold is economically seen the illness that costs the most in terms of ill leaves, less productivity etc. Any pharmaceutical company could earn billions if it could find a vaccine against the common cold. But we have none. So no, I do not bet on finding an effective vaccine. When we find one, but it is only effective for say 2 months, then it is only useful for special risk groups (elderly, people with other conditions that might be dangerous with COVID-19, health workers).

Hi Alex, I think the USA could learn something from the North European countries. Your proposals are very much in line with what I know of the police in the Netherlands, Switzerland, and probably also the Scandinavian countries. Try 'the norden - police' on Youtube (24 Minutes; the part about Prison might be interesting too).

I think it makes no sense to say that the vedas were twisted or not. They have grown organically. There are so many reasons for a text to change, especially when it originally was an oral tradition. Without having the 'original' how would you see that the texts changed? There are methods to find out which of the present versions we have are probably the oldest, but of course we can have no idea what the first written down version of the vedas were. And then there are many reasons why texts change over time, just to name a few: errors when copying the texts corrections of (language) errors authors putting in their ideas into the texts, in good or ill faith I only know a little about the history of Christian texts, which are of course not so old as the vedas, and also here already the problem exists that we do not know exactly what the original texts were. But we know copyists made errors, corrected errors, put in sentences or even complete stories, often because these copyists had a theological agenda to promote their version of Christianity. From some texts we know that there must have been more original texts, but they did not survive. With the vedas this will be worse, because they were orally passed to others for a much longer time. In Christianity, especially the new testament, there are at most only about 100 years between the oral tradition and the first written down versions we have (often less: the gospels were written till about 100 years, the earliest one probably only 30 years, after Jesus' death). With the vedas it is several millennia before they were written down.

Twisted? From what to what?

How would such a proof look like? That is wagging the dog. Choice is a result of the reasoning, even when the reasoning is determined. A bit gross, one can say that your reasoning causes your choice, and your action is caused by your choice. If you are blocked to act according to your choice your free will is restricted. If not, then your action is free. You seem to think that 'being able to do otherwise' under exactly the same circumstances, including the state of your brain and body, would be necessary for free will. It isn't. Free will means to be able to act according your motivations. Electrons have no colour, as protons and neutrons. So how can objects made of them have colour? Think deeper. I'll give you a clou: endless loop. Yeah, it is a herculean job, sure. Principally I would say 'yes'. But we must agree on what we understand under 'free will'. If it means e.g. the above 'could have done otherwise under exactly the same circumstances, including our brain and body' (1) then the answer is no. That follows from the concept of determinism: if the start conditions are exactly the same, the same results will happen. So also your choice and action will be the same. Also when one means with free will 'not caused by natural processes' (2), then the answer would be 'no'. But if one takes as definition 'being able to act according your own motivations', then yes, we have free will. And in my opinion, this is the only aspect we empirically know of ourselves. Decide to do something, and you can do it! But there is not any empirical basis in our daily life that fits the previous two attributes: they are interpretations: (1) is not empirically given: we cannot play the movie again exactly the same. It follows from the idea that the world is determined. Besides there are far better analyses what exactly we mean with 'could have done otherwise', much more realistic, and with no contradiction with determinism and with my concept of free will. (2) is a remnant of Christian theology, in which in the Creation by an omnipotent, omniscient, and good God an explanation was needed why people do bad things and are responsible for their actions. More or less, but the brain of course plays a major role. Not necessarily, but grosso modo yes. One needs certain capabilities that most people have, some only a bit, others much more: self knowledge, experience of how actions can work out, awareness of what other people do, i.e. see the consequences of your actions. So definitely some people are freer than others. I have some difficulty to understand what you mean, but maybe this reaction touches it: People's minds are not a unity. Different motivations exist in us that can contradict each other. It can make choice extremely difficult, and in your example one must have a very strong motivation to overrule the other motivations, of not to like feeling pain, or destruct (parts of) your own body.

For those interested, I now read the whole article "Is everything determined?" of Stephen Hawking. I find it funny that already in the third sentence, the ambiguity of Hawking's position becomes clear. It is one of the leading questions of the article: Bold by me. I would have formulated: Is everything we do determined or preordained? Reason is that they are different things: Being determined is not the same as being preordained. I would answer 'yes' to the first question (at least when no quantum effects are considered, which in the question of free will seems a good approximation), but 'no' to second. What we do matters, also in a determined world, i.e. we have influence on what happens. Hawking seems to be aware of this difference, but just does not dive deep enough in the difference. Reason is what he takes as outstanding attribute of free will: Both determinism and predestination in principle offer the possibility that we can predict human behaviour. But is unpredictability really an attribute of free will? I think it isn't at all; and Hawking thinks it isn't practically. Two reasons: Hawking's end conclusion: The other one is that if one would be able to predict what I will do based on laws of nature and present conditions, and then tells me his prediction, I can change my behaviour based on this prediction. The way out for the determinist is of course: keep the prediction secret. Put it in an envelope and bring it to a notary. Then after the prediction was fulfilled, show the prediction to everybody. But if he predicted something I did out of my free choice, should that bother me at all? The question if I was forced to do something by somebody, or did it because I liked to do it is not changed by the fact that the prediction was correct. So even under perfect prediction, I can still make the distinction if my action was free or not. At a more daily level: people who know me very well, will often be able to correctly predict what I will do in a certain situation. But really, I have not the feeling that this possibility somehow is an argument against free will. It just show I am a person with certain character traits. Would be funny if I do not act according to them, wouldn't it? But then, I found this statement of honesty of Hawking: I assume that he was often asked his opinion, as a world famous physicist, about the free will 'problem'. So he decided to write down what his way of thinking is. He does not claim to deliver a solution to it. What is left is an interesting, thought provoking, and well written essay about how he himself sees the solution of the seeming contradiction between determinism and free will.