joigus

Mmmm. Yeah, sounds like you guys totally agree. You cut and paste some of your sentences and you can mock up a bitter debate.

I would like to create a little room here for the wonderfully unexpected, beautiful,... (add your adjective) in Nature. Unexpected and/or beautiful could be interpreted as curious/spectacular, or similar. I mean to use these examples in order to keep the kids interested in Nature. The youngest ones get bored very easily. Examples could be: a rare animal, plant or protist, an almost unbelievably beautiful geological phenomenon, an amazingly complicated molecule that looks like a tinker-toy assembly, spectacular phenomena in water eddies and such. You get the idea. My getting-started examples: Glasswinged butterfly A family of butterflies that eat poisonous leaves when they're caterpillars and grow transparent wings. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greta_oto Rainbow Eucalyptus tree A species of tree that looks as if somebody had Photoshop-painted them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucalyptus_deglupta Maths are also welcome. Things that look paradoxical like 0.9999999... = 1 would be the idea. I'm sure people will enrich this with possibilities I'm not foreseeing.

Totally. +1

Touché.

Sanity is a mental condition. A platitude is an unnecessary (on account of being too obvious to be useful) statement. You really seem to have no clue, neither about what Eise is saying, nor about what you're saying yourself. Your sentences really are a challenge as to how many inconsistencies you can fit into them per word.

If they are well-learned enough in science, maths, logic, linguistics, computer science..., why not?

Thanks a lot. Very useful. +1

I personally don't take offence at the concept of science being wrong, even though I use my leisure time mostly to learn more about it and I've made of it my method to try and understand the world better, like most of us here I would say. I don't think science aims for absolute truth. It's not about being right or wrong beyond any doubt. It's about being more right and certain and less wrong and uncertain, and pushing the limits of doubt and ignorance. Science doesn't provide us with a magic wand to dictate ethics either. It evidences correlations, most of them of statistical nature. It sheds light on plausible causal connections, it refutes previous ill-conceived ideas. If we do that, we are in a better position to take better decisions, diagnose better, tackle evil before it happens. But this can only be achieved by adding to the structure more layers of rational thinking and open discussion. Our understanding is never complete. What kind of philosophy marginalizes individuals? Do you mean something like social Darwinism? It's not a universal trait of philosophy, AFAIK. I'm guessing you've voted that there are good and bad philosophical theories...

You can have a plague, massive wiping out of genes, but the smallest sample get amplified by the founder effect later. And what previously was a Charlemagne differential gene (I suppose Charlemagne had genes for cellular respiration too) get amplified to almost universal proportions. It's kind of a mix, filter, mutate and stretch kind of dynamics.

Agreed. Language of itself can mislead you. Maths too. Experiments without theoretical analysis are devoid of meaning. Sheer observation can be a crook. It's a network of interrelationships, cross checks, that makes it all solid. Narrowing down the chances of being mistaken. Cladking doesn't even seem to know what a cat is. Most people have no problem with this.

The problem with this is that is sounds sooooo much like a particular philosophy... You simply can't escape philosophy. Break down the word into etymological pieces and you'll understand why.

Some days ago I learnt from @Strange that most Europeans are descended from Charlemagne. I've learnt many other things from him. But this one got me thinking (and still is) about the likely regular Jacks and Susans, and Joes and Marys, who were especially successful in the reproductive sense, but not particularly notorious, and got their genes pushed forward in human history.

Wrong paragraph, wrong book. Nothing about categories there; nothing makes much sense there either in today's context. You still sound cathartic.

@cladking Common categories are not Aristotelian (classical) categories. The concept of cat comes from the clustering together by family resemblance of particular instances of what we call cats, not by the definition of closed (mathematical) equivalence classes. There's even a mathematical theory for the concept you're groping towards: fuzzy sets. Overall, your discourse sounds cathartic, more than based on thought out concepts. You sound dissatisfied and you seem to want to voice your dissatisfaction. You should try some common-interest group based on emotions, rather than a scientific / philosophical battleground for your complaints. That's my advice, anyway. Edit: Here's an example of your "cats"

Read some Wittgenstein. And then some modern cognitive scientists. They've already developed the point you're trying to make.

Gross underestimation.

Sorry. You're right. You do make a point. I was under the influence of the last couple of comments I've had to answer to, which were quite pointless. Thank you. +1 You do make a good point here.

Told you. Thinking is hard, and you have opted for a simplified version of it. You've thrown away tens of thousands of years of human knowledge right there. Hardly the point.

Some of that.

Good question. +1. I suppose modern psychometric techniques are getting us closer to it.

I think you're living the "deductive only" delusion. Either that, or completely missing the essential connection between induction and deduction. Plus, may I say, everything most people are telling you here. There's a common understanding in science and rational thinking that apparently you're not privy to: All thinking starts with induction/observation (that comes first) Then: --> inference of patterns --> proposing definitions and laws --> deduction of both seen and previously unforeseen consequences --> Testing --> Refinement of induction --> confirmation/rejection of theory --> formulation of new theory or refinement of previous one. Something like that. It's long, it's arduous; it takes time, effort, money, and many brains working together. That is the process. You need to get over the axiomatic dream, or the illusion that induction and deduction occur in completely separate levels that don't talk to each other. That's not how it works. And the absolutely essential piece that closes the circle is experiment. As to connecting experiment, religion, and common sense as different motifs for "belief"... I think you've really lost your bearings there. Evidence and belief are not the same thing. It is true that the evidence is always affected by the theory as to its format; the language, if you will, in which the answer is presented. But the process by which we acquire evidence, and the one by which we acquire belief; plus the degree of certainty of both, the objectivity the achieve... It could hardly be more different.

You make some very good points here. +1. You also introduce an element which must have slipped my mind, which is the one of usefulness. This element of usefulness actually had more to do with the original meaning of my question. The ethical question, important though it is, was not what I had in mind. That doesn't mean I don't welcome any other aspects that other members may have in mind. I do. Also, I'm not saying that the ethical question is out of reach for rational thinking, which I think it is. Concepts such as common sense, equanimity and the like are quite useful (again) to get to working standards for ethics. Golden rule is the best example. I agree that potential for harm should not be the criterion upon which we base what we ought to know and what we oughtn't.

And a take-home lesson about diet. Maybe bad science is science unchecked by philosophical concerns?

Trying to use reason to understand the internal arguments of religion is as hopeless as trying to thread a needle through a loop.

I would just add "degrees of certainty" to your list, which I just assume you've thought about before. How you grade concepts in a meaningful and useful way is another matter, of course. I'm trying to get closer to precisely this concept you mention. Namely: What would be a good criterion for a "philosophy of science"?