God

I haven't talked about religion, DE, and I won't. I am only discussing personal philosophy on moral law and the fact that I use science as a tool on a daily basis in my work. But, if you want to share your views on religion, feel free.

Jaketejas wrote: I believe that science can be used for good or evil, and therefore, I can't use science as a basis for moral law.

Are you a statistician of some sort?

While my determinism affects my views (under some philosophical definitions I would be considered a compatibilist), I have a sense of of morality based on the assumption that the world would be a better place if it had the least amount of suffering and the most well-being, and anything else that I think follows from it, and we should strive to make the world a kinder, fairer, and better place. It has to do with the kind of world that I would want to live in and what I think others would benefit from.

I wouldn't use science as a basis for "moral law" either, but I think that the scientific method can be a useful in describing cultural norms, and science can be utilised to better discern that which is beneficial to well-being and human and nature's flourishing. Of course it can be used for good and evil, so can religion, but unlike science, religions are considered by a great many to be moral authorities. Well, many of them claim that the moral authority is God and they are just acting like the messengers....

I grew up in the Anglican Church, have socialist leanings, and am somewhat affiliated with Humanism: https://americanhumanist.org/what-is-humanism/definition-of-humanism/ . I consider myself to be a liberal in the sense of being a free-thinker and open minded even if I don't believe in truly free will. I am ultimately agnostic on all matters in some sense, but I don't need to be absolutely convinced to believe many things. I'd rather live in a secular democracy than a theocracy. I would like everyone to have opportunities to achieve their potential, I value creativity and principles of equality, compassion and rational thinking, I value volunteerism, and I care deeply about environmental issues.

Anyway, sorry, I do go on. Brevity is the soul of wit and all that.

Not that I want this to become like an interview with question/ answer as I prefer more casual dialectic, and swapping jokes, but what about you? Do you have any relevant affiliations? Do you believe in God, and if so, why?

Edited by Logan - June 19 2019 at 21:10

Hi,

I work with the scientific method every day in my job and it is useful for measuring quantities and modeling experimental data with theoretical fits. But, when we talk about good and evil, or right and wrong, or what defines a prick from a charitable person, then we are moving from the confines of science to moral law. That's why I bring up those questions about your basis.

Nor I yours to be be sure! I value your thoughts and am happy that you are sharing them. I am really just trying to see, as much as I can, your point of view.

The question I wonder now is ... what is your basis for right and wrong? And, if you are a determinist, how does that work? It seems that you are now considering moral law.

That seems very useful for predicting the weather (to a point) ... and perhaps in the future volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, and large meteorite collisions with earth. But, do I want to base my beliefs on that for my life and for those whom I love? I think that a philosophy like that for life could be dangerous if you approach life always thinking ... with what probability can I get ahead if I do such-and-such, especially at the expense of others. That's what I mean by that gentle whisper of the conscience that I just can't deny.

/

Logan wrote: No, I don't. It is a heuristic method to choose between competing hypotheses based on what data one has, and it works well as a starting point for choosing which avenues are best to investigate. It works for competing hypotheses that have the same predictions, but doesn't do away with the hypotheses that make different predictions. Between several hypothesis that make the same prediction or have the same result, the one that makes the least number of assumptions is generally best. It's rather "liberating" to be a determinist, I can blame it all on causal chains (heredity and environmental factors). ;)

Is that what you believe?

Polymorphia wrote: Logan wrote: Jaketejas wrote: I appreciate your sharing different viewpoints, and that you put up with my attempts at humor. Don't you think that Occam's Razor (or the related law of simplicity) is rather limited? Taking those laws as a basis, none of us should exist here and now. Yet, here we are, and it is a humbling experience. Also known as the law of parsimony. Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions is the one that should be selected (and/or most likely). And it also relates to something I said earlier in this thread, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof". No I don't, and I find your application problematic. Occam's razor is predictive, and if none had existed, none would be making the predictions and presenting competing hypotheses. When working with Occam's razor, you start with known quantities for hypotheses, and you weigh them up. Saying that "Taking those laws as a basis, none of us should exist here and now" is an assumption of yours, and I don't believe that it is a good or really relevant use of the principles/methodology of Occam's razor. Does our non-existence require less assumptions at any time? Would it ever have been predictable, and to who?   Is this an anomaly? As a determinist, I think that we were bound to exist, but there is quantum fluctuation to consider, but that's another matter. I exist and expect that before that I didn't exist and at a later date I won't exist (at least in this state). I'm not sure why that must be humbling either. That quote ["Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof"], while not wrong , is entirely unrelated to Occam's Razor (which I also don't think is necessarily wrong, but... I'll get to that later).  The conclusion with the fewest assumptions, in the physical world, is pretty much synonymous with the cause event which takes up the shortest length of time and smallest amount of space using the weakest force (relative to the energy of its proposed source). Imagine that you were weighing the guilt of two defendants against one another. And hour before the crime occurred, defendant A was identified in the area and defendant B was identified an hour's drive away. In this case, according Occam's Razor, it is more likely that defendant A committed the crime, even though it is still possible that Defendant B is guilty, no?* I have a point with this, but I want to know if you agree thus far.  *Obviously the evidence is circumstantial so the argument would not work in court, but "innocent until proven guilty" is only a dialectic methodological assumption based on the premise that it is ethically preferable for a guilty party to go free than for an innocent party to be punished. To boot, we are only weighing probability here, not sentencing someone to death; geez, lighten up. Edit: for precision

If you don't mind, I'm putting in the parts that you edited out, since otherwise context can be lost, and one might miss the point of what I'm responding to as this is about how Occam's razor relates to our existence, or something. For this reason I tend to quote in full. I know I didn't answer it at as well as I should have, and I'm hoping that where you are going will respond to Jaketejas' comment as well as my response to it. Hopefully he'll elaborate too on his concept.

I would be interested to know from your perspective how there can be no possible relation between Occam's razor and the extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence quote.   Of course I never said it's the same, but to find no relation between the concepts? But you said that would get to that. Maybe I'm someone who find thinks more interrelated than they actually are (I have a holistic sort of perspective and am definitely a pattern-seeking animal). I expect one wouldn't make such a statement without having tried to think it out from various angles to try to find some relation. As a non-absolutist, I avoid such absolute statements. They relate to me and they both relate to what I've been saying since page two of this thread. We should not be trying to look for overly complex solutions to problems, but instead we should be looking for simpler solutions that fit the circumstances that require less assumptions and less extraordinary reasons (was it a coincidence or Divine intervention, something else....? to get to the start of this avenue). Of course Occam's razor is not the be all and end all, and is often a good starting point for our approach when choosing betwixt competing hypotheses without sufficient evidence to make a claim. To believe extraordinary claims often requires making extraordinary assumptions, so one demands extraordinary evidence. They are both approaches to seeking truth or likelihood as I see it, but then that would be a relation..

As to your example, I get how it logically follows from your prior description, and knowing that it's not enough reason to make a determination or even that I would think that Occam's razor should be consciously applied there (the razor should be used with caution as it's quite sharp), nor that it would work in a court of law, then fine I will say that suspect A is the more likely candidate based on what we know so far based on your framing, especially since to quote Aristotle, "Nature operates in the shortest way possible."


I'll probably get the quoting wrong and have to edit.

Edited by Logan - June 19 2019 at 16:37