"(d) Yet you choose to criticize the epistemology or method of those who make different arbitrary assumptions."

where did i do this? I believe i started this thread criticizing those who claimed it was easy to prove YEC false. ie criticizing the scientific method.

"The difference between us is that my assumption authenticates itself, at least, rather than undercutting itself."

i haven't found anything in my assumption which undercut itself, and infact i've seen many contradictions in a belief system based on literal interpretation of any religious text.


"Nor does it do you any good to attempt (as you try) to say that "Well, I don't know q either." If p => ~q, then you can accept p \/ q, but you can never accept p /\ q, which is what you're attempting to do "

Sure, but does p => ~q ?

you are saying that a materialistic world implies that regularity is not possible.

Which is simply not the case. A materialistic world allows for a regular or iRegular Universe. It does not specify.

A regular Universe on the other hand demands a materialistic Universe. (in the Atheistic sense which you've been using) IF the Universe is regular, then we assume that praying today will have the same effect as praying tomorrow.

And thus divine intervention will either always occur or never.

Now if you don't believe in an interventionist God then that is a separate issue. Or if you don't believe that God is separate from the Universe - which i think puts him/her/it in the category of sufficiently advanced alien...

"Of course, you ARE assuming induction, but your "complete trust" in induction is indeed in severe tension with your belief in your inability to know anything about the truth of induction."

Trust in induction is not a tension - the point is, as a skeptic I believe i can't know anything, thus I have only my instincts and rationality/logic to based my actions.

If those abilities leave me trusting induction then that is how i will act. And as i've tried to point out, neural networks like our brains, but also the brains of other animals, are setup to assume past input can be used to predict future inputs.

That is we are predisposed to build a world view, even subconsciously, which presupposes this inductive principle.

I would argue that many people do NOT make this assumption of regularity, in the sense that they do not think on any conscious level that they are making an assumption. It is on a different level which they're not aware of.

So you are claiming that by accepting awareness of this underlying assumption that my worldview is somehow less coherent?

"So you are claiming that by accepting awareness of this underlying assumption that my worldview is somehow less coherent? "

No certainly not. My critique would apply equally well to those who are unaware of the assumptions they are making.

"where did i do this? I believe i started this thread criticizing those who claimed it was easy to prove YEC false. ie criticizing the scientific method. "

You're quite right, you didn't actually do it. But the progress of the discussion was like this:

1) I pointed out that, by these standards, you _couldn't_ criticize somebody for their epistemological standards (without being hypocritical).
2) You defended your ability to do so (without, it's true, having actually done so).
3) I disagreed (above) with said ability, using admittedly informal language that implied you had already exercised it. You're right, you hadn't. I should have said, instead of "Yet you choose," "Yet you say you could choose."

"i haven't found anything in my assumption which undercut itself,"

Again -- you believe in induction, and rely on said belief; at the same time believe that said belief must be meaningless. (Not as to the content of the statement you believe, but as to the verb, "believe.")

"you are saying that a materialistic world implies that regularity is not possible."

No, I never said that. I have carefully avoided saying it, in fact, because you're right, it's not true. However, to say that you completely believe something is true, and also that you have no idea whether it's true, is itself a contradiction. This is the contradiction I was speaking of. Read carefully my definitions of p, q, etc.above.

"Trust in induction is not a tension - the point is, as a skeptic I believe i can't know anything, thus I have only my instincts and rationality/logic to based my actions.

If those abilities leave me trusting induction then that is how i will act."

They are exactly in tension. Your instincts leave you trusting induction. Your reason leaves you not trusting induction. Your reason tells you there would be nothing irrational in taking my bet, and that you might just as well win as lose, but your instincts tell you there would, and that you would lose.

"And as i've tried to point out, neural networks like our brains, but also the brains of other animals, are setup to assume past input can be used to predict future inputs. "

Fine -- then neural networks are in tension with reason (given a materialist world view). And?

"A regular Universe on the other hand demands a materialistic Universe. (in the Atheistic sense which you've been using) IF the Universe is regular, then we assume that praying today will have the same effect as praying tomorrow. "

First, this ignores an important point: prayers might well be answered through regularity, by adjusting initial conditions or free parameters (QM).

Second, though, you're quite right up to a point. A Christian does not believe in absolute regularity. There are miracles etc. However, he does believe in a very high level of regularity, which is justified to a high degree inside his world view.

My computer is down, so I presently have internet access only here at work or on my laptop. The upshot is that I may continue to respond, or I may not. I hope you understand -- I have made my points, and you've made yours, and we're hammering out small points (which are not useless, though).

I will certainly at least read any responses you make, though, and so encourage you to do so (I'm not trying to get the last word!), and I may well respond.

Humans trying debate about the existence of infinite logic using finite logic is like two leaves debating the existence of the tree.

Well... whichever leaf says there's a tree is right!

How could a debate that touched on Sun and Earth miss the best story about Wittgenstein?

Meeting a friend in the corridor, Ludwig Wittgenstein asked: "Tell me, why do people always say that it was natural for men to assume that the Sun went around the Earth rather than the Earth was rotating?"

His friend said: "Well, obviously, because it just looks as if the Sun is going around the Earth."

To which the philosopher replied: "Well, what would it look like if it had looked as if the Earth was rotating?"

1)"Well, what would it look like if it had looked as if the Earth was rotating?"

common sense indicates that you would feel a rotation is the earth was rotating, thus the assumption is based again on the appearance that the earth is stationary. (common sense is right, coriolis forces causes weather systems to rotate)

@semck: we seem to have started out with a fundamental misunerstanding...
you said that i: " you _couldn't_ criticize somebody for their epistemological standards (without being hypocritical)."

I said i could criticize their beliefs, not the basis for their beliefs. I think there is a distinct difference.

I believe i compared YEC to Last Thursdayism - now i may have suggested that they were on an equal footing - which makes it much less clear what is was criticizing.

"to say that you completely believe something is true, and also that you have no idea whether it's true, is itself a contradiction."

What words would you have me use? 'to completely trust something while acknowledging that such trust is baseless'

I believe ultimately in skepticism, but without being able to build a life philosophy on that I choose to trust something else - that is a philosophy of how to live my life - the fact that i acknowledge that my philosophy is just this a construction which may be faulty is not in itself a tension.

"Fine -- then neural networks are in tension with reason (given a materialist world view). And?"

no, neural networks allow the construction of model/world views, this allows for 'reason' but reason does not demand that regularity be true, thus any model built up by these systems is inherently limited and fallible.

Or perhaps, more likely, valid only for a subset of reality.

Neural networks are the basis for reason. The fact that reason doesn't separately support the notion of regularity which is implicit in the structure of a neuron doesn't mean they are in tension.

All logical arguements, all reason, begin with some premise.

" Your instincts leave you trusting induction. Your reason leaves you not trusting induction."

This is exactly wrong.

My instincts leave me trusting induction, my reason leaves me trusting nothing.

Thus i have trust in induction, and reason leads me to no conclusions on what to trust. (leaving me with trust in induction and nothing else)

However you imply that reason tells me NOT to trust induction. This is not the case. Reason has no conclusions to make about whether induction can be trusted or not.

It is the difference between NOT trusting induction, and trusting NOT induction.

You take the question from a different perspective, it was much more ingenious than what you suggest. Wittgenstein asked "Well, what would it look like IF IT HAD LOOKED as if the Earth was rotating?" which means that you make a thought experiment in which Earth is rotating and then you have to admit that it would look exactly the same as if everything revolved around the Earth.

that is quite cool when stated thus. I clearly didn't read the statement that way...

Wittgenstein taught me that the exclusive use of intellect will never allow one to arrive at Truth. It was after taking his course that I realized the only philosophizing worth studying was my own. For the best I could do with others' philosophies was to understand them at the limit in which the language would allow me to. At some point even my own philosophizing blocks me to the Truth for the intellect can only objectify the universe.