Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Why do we think about science on audio?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Why do we think about science on audio? - Page 6

post #76 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kees View Post
I find your use of the word "we" rather presumtuous for someone who has himself made no real contribution to any of this.
You position yourself in an ivory tower, hiding behind references to others and incomprehensible language.
Have fun there.

My professor used to say: If you want to know things for certain, ask a twenty year old. They know everything for certain.
Ooh, argumentum ad hominem. Very mature. Recall, if you've read what I wrote at all, that I believe that our rational faculties are fallible. I don't think absolute, certain knowledge is possible. Also, "we" refers to working scientists. I am a working scientist, hopefully contributing to the field. Also, I don't think I'm in an ivory tower. Here I am, an academic, discussing epistemology with everyone and anyone who will care to engage in rational discourse. If I were in an ivory tower, I wouldn't care what you think. We'd just let people be as irrational as they like.

I do admit that I have not contributed to this discussion in substantive way. I have not defended my views, but I've already stated why I think in this case the burden of proof is in you. A better way to reading me would be as asking, "So Kees, why do you believe what you do? I'm curious because as a working scientist, like most working scientist; and as an epistemologist, like most epistemologist, it's rare to find someone holding the position you do." I would like to see some arguments for your position out of curiosity. Your view entails that Creationism and Darwinianism are equally rational, and this is curious to me. Maybe you're right, and if so I want to know. I want to be able to change my views. But you give me no reason to.

Furthermore, I don't get the reference to "hiding behind references." I point you towards others because I happen to agree with their views, and I think they've stated the arguments well. So, I'm a wide open book. No hiding here. If you read the philosophers I tell you to and successfully refute them, then you've refuted me. I don't see the same transparency from you. Where's the argument? Where's the rational discourse? In fact, I've even helped you by suggesting some people who have similar views as you: Duhem and van Frassen. However, I think Musgrave (e.g., 1999) has raised good arguments against both, which you can read for yourself and evaluate.

P.S.: If I have been unclear at any point, please do tell. I'll happily clarify. All I'm asking is what I ask of my students: Provide substantive justification for your views, especially if they are controversial.
post #77 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kees View Post
I find your use of the word "we" rather presumtuous for someone who has himself made no real contribution to any of this.
You position yourself in an ivory tower, hiding behind references to others and incomprehensible language.
Have fun there.

My professor used to say: If you want to know things for certain, ask a twenty year old. They know everything for certain.
If nothing else you should lay off his language. It's perfectly comprehensible and quite eloquent without being unecessarily wordy all the time.
post #78 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonathanjong View Post
Ooh, argumentum ad hominem. Very mature. Recall, if you've read what I wrote at all, that I believe that our rational faculties are fallible. I don't think absolute, certain knowledge is possible. Also, "we" refers to working scientists. I am a working scientist, hopefully contributing to the field. Also, I don't think I'm in an ivory tower. Here I am, an academic, discussing epistemology with everyone and anyone who will care to engage in rational discourse. If I were in an ivory tower, I wouldn't care what you think. We'd just let people be as irrational as they like.

I do admit that I have not contributed to this discussion in substantive way. I have not defended my views, but I've already stated why I think in this case the burden of proof is in you. A better way to reading me would be as asking, "So Kees, why do you believe what you do? I'm curious because as a working scientist, like most working scientist; and as an epistemologist, like most epistemologist, it's rare to find someone holding the position you do." I would like to see some arguments for your position out of curiosity. Your view entails that Creationism and Darwinianism are equally rational, and this is curious to me. Maybe you're right, and if so I want to know. I want to be able to change my views. But you give me no reason to.

Furthermore, I don't get the reference to "hiding behind references." I point you towards others because I happen to agree with their views, and I think they've stated the arguments well. So, I'm a wide open book. No hiding here. If you read the philosophers I tell you to and successfully refute them, then you've refuted me. I don't see the same transparency from you. Where's the argument? Where's the rational discourse? In fact, I've even helped you by suggesting some people who have similar views as you: Duhem and van Frassen. However, I think Musgrave (e.g., 1999) has raised good arguments against both, which you can read for yourself and evaluate.

P.S.: If I have been unclear at any point, please do tell. I'll happily clarify. All I'm asking is what I ask of my students: Provide substantive justification for your views, especially if they are controversial.
I did try to clarify my point of view in more detail in this thread, I'm sure you remember. Especially post #50.
I've been catching up on Duhem and van Fraassen (double a if I'm correct) as you suggested and will check up on Musgrave to try figure out what your problem with my point of view actually is.
I've discoverde no problems or objections yet, as everybody seems to agree that "the only thing we can know about reality is what we perceive" .
post #79 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kees View Post
I've discoverde no problems or objections yet, as everybody seems to agree that "the only thing we can know about reality is what we perceive" .
I'm glad you're catching up on the reading. Now, one comment about what you said above. I have no problems with "the only thing we can know about reality is what we perceive" (as long as "perceive" is broadly construed here. I think some truths don't require sensory perception to be held. Mathematical truths might be such truths. The falsity of contradictions might be another.). However, the reduction of reality to percepts is what I have a problem with. That is, the doctrine that "perception is reality", such that there is no reality independent of our perceptions. I don't think that reality (or the set of all true propositions, or the set of all actually existent entities) is co-extensive with perception or belief. Sometimes it sounds like you agree with me, but sometimes it doesn't. It's not entirely clear to me.

P.S.: Thanks for the head up on spelling van Fraassen's name correctly! Hey, he's your countryman!
post #80 of 85
It sounds like we need philosophers rather than scientists in here... or is just me?
post #81 of 85
You're probably right. I try to wear two hats, qua scientist and philosopher. However, I'm still mainly a scientist and a philosopher's voice would be welcome here. Remember though, that most philosophers of science start off as scientists. Popper did psychology, Duhem did physics, Polayni did chemistry, etc.
post #82 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by monolith View Post
If nothing else you should lay off his language. It's perfectly comprehensible and quite eloquent without being unecessarily wordy all the time.
...pithy.

How's it goin' Jonathan?
post #83 of 85
In the M & M study it was not a matter of averaging.
post #84 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonathanjong View Post
I'm tempted to put my "philosopher of science/epistemologist" hat on and contribute to the conversation on what science is and does, but I think there's a more important role to play. I think the claims that science is purely pragmatic (i.e., it generate good predictions used to invent technologies) is false both historically and philosophically, but that's not my battle today. I'll leave you to read up history and philosophy of science for yourselves.

Instead, I'd like to apologize on behalf of religious people. I am unapologetically a Christian, and unapologetically a scientist. I have the difficult job of studying religious belief, in fact. More specifically, I look at the evolutionary roots of religious belief. The more astute of you can see where this is going. Furthermore, I am interested in ethics, and how Christian theology contributes to it. Inevitably, environmental ethics comes into play.

Now, we're not allowed to discuss politics and religion on this forum, and for good reason. So, I'm not going to make any arguments. But I am going to apologize: If any of you have come across my Christian brethren who have been anti-science and anti-intellectual, I'm sorry. We're not all Darwin and Global Warming deniers. And we're working on it, on convincing the others.
I have a saying - God is what is. Meaning that if there is a god, he/she/it is to be found or understood by understanding his/her/its creation. Science does just that and as such is not inherently anti-religious. However some specfic dogmas may have to go as a result of scientific evidence and that's what causes fundamentalists grief.


I see you're from "Godzone!"
post #85 of 85
That seems like a very arrogant point of view to me.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Why do we think about science on audio?