@Taylor An investigation of meaning. Leading us to reason, then into various axioms of logic and rules of investigating experience.
Sure, we were born with no system, not even an understanding of definitions. Then we learned a language, and we used that to learn more and to put together a system.
We've build our understanding each day, we built a better system. To borrow from Tarski's undefinability theorem, the thing is, we normally build UP. We slowly create metasystems to explain our old systems. Each metasystem has axioms that supersede the axioms in the old system. We bootstrap ourselves up, coming up with higher and higher axioms. Bootstrapping in this matter is not logical. Logic can't say which system is 'better at finding truths,' since logic doesn't care about finding truths anymore than a hammer cares about hammering nails.
Anyway, at a snapshot in our life, we are at some highest system for that moment.
My current highest system (which is different then yours, and very different from my own 30 years ago) has the scientific method as its starting axiom. I have been unable to bootstrap myself past it. It is -as far as I have been able to tell in my 34 years of life- the best way to find truth. Better than everything else, even my own thoughts and feeling, which where my highest axiom for some time. Yet, when I figured out another metasystem to examine the one with my thoughts and feelings as the axioms, I found them to be wanting. So, I moved on to the new system, with its axioms. I cannot justify my choice to you, bootstrapping is what it is. I can only say it was what I did.
@Taylor
So your point is? What are you trying to argue at this stage?
Well, that's the issue, we can't 'argue' about axioms. They can either be accepted or not.
Anyway,
The 'point' at this stage is to get to a shared Step 0: To agree on definitions.
Once we have done that to a satisfactory level, we can communicate enough to properly flush out our 'starting points' to one another. Likely, that will be the end, because our starting points will be different and no further progress could meaningfully be made.
But, it is premature to claim our starting points are different because we've not satisfactory agreed on the definition of 'axiom,' which is a critical idea to this. Currently, I am going off of the accepted definition (as I cited earlier) "Axioms are primitive statements, whose validity is accepted without justification." "Within the system they define, axioms (unless redundant) cannot be derived by principles of deduction, nor are they demonstrable by mathematical proofs, simply because they are starting points; there is nothing else from which they logically follow otherwise they would be classified as theorems." And, -thus far- you don't seem to be. Since we can't -yet- agree on what the word 'axiom' means, we can't meaningfully evaluate if ours are different or not. So, we need to do that first.
I also have a suspicion we disagree on the definition of 'the scientific method,' but one thing at a time...
The scientific method is justified for the same reason that other methods are not. It produces better results in the things it applies to. That simple. Same reason you're justified in eating when you're hungry as opposed to a different method of dealing with that situation, such as punching yourself in the face. It produces better results.
The scientific method is justified for the same reason that other methods are not. It produces better results in the things it applies to.
No one says you have to agree with what I am putting forward as axiomatic for me. But,
What do you -currently- trust over the scientific method?
And, what do you trust over that?
"Axioms are primitive statements, whose validity is accepted without justification."
The scientific method, like all methods, does require justification. It is justified all the time by how well it works. The scientific method is also justifiably built upon more fundamental beliefs, such as nature behaving consistently and the general accuracy of our senses.
The scientific method, like all methods, does require justification. It is justified all the time by how well it works. The scientific method is also justifiably built upon more fundamental beliefs, such as nature behaving consistently and the general accuracy of our senses.
Currently, there are two systems being proposed:
One is our senses are assumed as the best way to find truths, as StairC and most others seem to be agreeing on.
The other is where one assumes the scientific method is the best way to find truths.
These might seem like basically identical systems, but they're not. Certainly -at this base level of reasoning we're at- they're not.
They're not, because the scientific method claims the human brain is very very diluted. One only needs to read down a list of cognitive biases to know the scientific method claims the human brain is even very proficient at diluting itself on how good it is at diluting itself.
So, which do we trust? Well, if we trust the scientific method, then we have to question our own minds. We have to admit WE are flawed and -therefor- can't really be trusted. Many people would have trouble admitting... well.... I let Sam Harris say it: "The human mind, therefore, is like a ship that has been built and rebuilt, plank by plank, on the open sea. Changes have been made to her sails, keel, and rudder even as the waves battered every inch of her hull. And much of our behavior and cognition, even much that now seems essential to our humanity, has not been selected for at all." -The Moral Landscape
Thus, if I am choosing to trust the scientific method (as I am), I must do it over my very thoughts. I can't justify my choice, it is axiomatic. So, I must end the discussion where I started it:
I guess I should be thankful as a school teacher I basically make my living by repeating myself over and over for different (and sometimes the same) people.
I expect you do have to repeat yourself a lot when you ignore what people say that demonstrates your questions aren't valid.
Your own definition of what an axiom is invalidates your question trying to prop up scientific method an axiom. Get your argument in order before demanding people engage with it.
Also, I did explain that there are more foundational beliefs the scientific method is built on. This demonstrates it is NOT the starting point of reason. An axiom isn't something you trust most highly. If it was, when it comes to math my calculator would be an axiom. Not how it works.
Now, are you willing to engage in a real conversation? Because you don't get to act as the authority here. You don't get to set the topic and grade the answers. This isn't your classroom. Sighing and repeating yourself doesn't make you look good here.
Ok, Stairc, if I may, -essentially- your claim is that my claim about my own beliefs isn't correct.
So, if I'm not doing what I am saying I am doing, mainly accepting the scientific method is the best way to find truths axiomatically (based on the processes outlined in post #156), what am I doing? What -exactly- is your counterclaim?
Tell me again, what -exactly- are my axioms?
And don't just say 'your senses' because I've just denied they are. If you feel I am in denial about that denial, you've not -yet- proven it to me. So, if that is your claim, I must ask you repeat yourself in a different way.
Oh, and -for someone gungho about not being ignored while claiming I shouldn't need to repeat myself- you still haven't answered the question I've asked you twice, and I guess I should ask again: What do you -currently- trust over the scientific method?
And, what do you trust over that?
Regardless of your opinion of their validity, I would appreciate it you do me the reciprocal courtesy of answering.
I already did answer the *point* of your question by mentioning the more foundational axioms of the scientific method. Your question is ill-formed, which is why no one wants to engage with it. You don't find an axiom by asking how much you trust something. Your question is...
What do you -currently- trust over the scientific method?
Because, if the answer is 'nothing,' then your trust in it would be axiomatic, by definition.
This is wrong. Like I said, I trust the "using a calculator method" more than I trust any other methods of solving applicable math calculations as a general principle. That doesn't make the "calculator method" an axiom. That trust has been built up by my experiences with the results being beneficial. That trust could be broken if it stopped working.
The word "trust" here isn't a productive exploration of what makes an axiom. Yes, I trust the scientific method and its results over anything else right now as a general principle for applicable problems. Like the calculator method for math. It does not mean it's an axiom, or that it's impossible to invalidate it. It does require justification and is not the starting point of reason. Reliable and beneficial does not an axiom make.
Oh, and -for someone gungho about not being ignored while claiming I shouldn't need to repeat myself- you still haven't answered the question I've asked you twice, and I guess I should ask again: What do you -currently- trust over the scientific method?
And, what do you trust over that?
Stairc and I have both answered your question several times between the two of us, with roughly the same answer. We have given justification for the scientific method.
I am not claiming that you do not see the scientific method as axiomatic. I am claiming that a) I do not, and b) you don't need to. (Demonstrably proven by the fact that I do not, so it is possible to trust the method without treating it as an axiom.)
Agreed. Also, treating the scientific method AND the axioms its built on BOTH as axioms - as mentioned in his recent post - is just strange. It's like claiming that the tenth floor of a building is the ground floor, and it just happens to be built on top of nine other ground floors.
Really? How did you read that scientific paper? With your eyes? So yep, still gotta rely on some senses there.
As I have already said, I am not saying I shouldn't trust my senses. In fact, I have already said I should, just not absolutely.
Nor would I classify my nearsighted eyes as 'accurate' just because they're usable to detect ink on a closeup page.
]Stairc and I have both answered your question several times between the two of us, with roughly the same answer. We have given justification for the scientific method.
You have not told me the method you use to find truths over the scientific method. You hinted there is a method, but you've not stated what it is or how you use it.
Agreed. Also, treating the scientific method AND the axioms its built on BOTH as axioms - as mentioned in his recent post - is just strange. It's like claiming that the tenth floor of a building is the ground floor, and it just happens to be built on top of nine other ground floors.
A system can have more than one axiom. In fact, most meaningful ones do. For example, arithmetic normally has 7 to 11, depending.
[quote from="Stairc »" url="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/community-forums/debate/religion/641818-define-your-faith?comment=166"]Really? How did you read that scientific paper? With your eyes? So yep, still gotta rely on some senses there.
As I have already said, I am not saying I shouldn't trust my senses. In fact, I have already said I should, just not absolutely.
Nor would I classify my nearsighted eyes as 'accurate' just because they're usable to detect ink on a closeup page.
What you said, Taylor, was what was meant by 'generally accurate'. Not that the senses provide a wide range of detailed information, but that the senses don't usually provide false information.
As I have already said, I am not saying I shouldn't trust my senses. In fact, I have already said I should, just not absolutely.
Nor would I classify my nearsighted eyes as 'accurate' just because they're usable to detect ink on a closeup page.
I said the "general accuracy" of your senses for precisely this reason. Not the "absolute accuracy". Strawmans get boring when used repeatedly. This is more like an invisible strawman though. You respond to my post with an argument that is secretly a strawman, and then when it's refuted it you reveal the original strawman to try to counter the refutation. Doesn't work.
I find it difficult to believe that when I listed the general accuracy of our senses, you genuinely believed I meant "our senses are absolutely accurate and super awesome and can't possibly be assisted by technology in any way ever". Especially in the context of a discussion of axioms, which often involve discussion of the senses and their accuracy. Did you genuinely believe that? If so, why on earth would you leap to such an absurd extreme?
Also, treating the scientific method AND the axioms its built on BOTH as axioms - as mentioned in his recent post - is just strange. It's like claiming that the tenth floor of a building is the ground floor, and it just happens to be built on top of nine other ground floors.
A system can have more than one axiom. In fact, most meaningful ones do. For example, arithmetic normally has 7 to 11, depending.
This isn't going to get anywhere if you keep jumping onto nonsequitrs. I and Lithl are repeatedly pointing out that there's a difference between "thing you trust a lot" and "axiom". You seem unable to distinguish a difference between the two. You seem uninterested in even responding to this refutation. In response to the issue of ignoring the definition of axiom's foundational role in reasoning, basically the ground floor of the tower of thought, you just respond that a "System" can rest upon multiple axioms. This is completely irrelevant. On top of that, your own comparison places "arithmetic" as the equivilant to the scientific method here. While irrelevant, I'm curious to know if you think "arithmetic" is an axiom too.
]Stairc and I have both answered your question several times between the two of us, with roughly the same answer. We have given justification for the scientific method.
You have not told me the method you use to find truths over the scientific method. You hinted there is a method, but you've not stated what it is or how you use it.
This is just getting silly. Axioms are the foundation of reason, self-evident and not requiring of justification. That's the whole reason they get a special name, rather than just being yet another premise.
The scientific method requires justification and is not self-evident nor the foundation of reason.
The reason you think your question is somehow meaningful is because you confuse degrees of certainty with axioms. They're not. It's not a battle-royal for most trusted method of determining scientific facts, with the winner getting the axiom crown. We have repeatedly explained this. I addressed this specifically just a post or two ago, explaining that yes - I currently (based on the justifications we have for it) trust the scientific method more than any other one for determining the answers to applicable questions. I also explained why this has nothing to do with whether the scientific method is an axiom.
What is still confusing you?
EDIT - Actually, I'm curious. Let's turn your question around and improve the form of it to make it more directly relevant. A kid in your class comes up to you and asks, "Why should we trust the scientific method more than other methods?"
What do you say? Do you provide any justification?
Not that the senses provide a wide range of detailed information, but that the senses don't usually provide false information.
Ok, again, if you read that list of cognitive biases, you'll see 'the senses don't usually provide false information' isn't supported by the scientific method.
Why do you think people always seem to get song lyrics wrong, until they're told the right ones?
I said the "general accuracy" of your senses for precisely this reason. Not the "absolute accuracy". Strawmans get boring when used repeatedly. This is more like an invisible strawman though. You respond to my post with an argument that is secretly a strawman, and then when it's refuted it you reveal the original strawman to try to counter the refutation. Doesn't work.
I was under the impression you were strawmaning me by making it seem as if I claimed I don't trust my senses enough to read ink on a page. Yet, we can yell 'strawman' back and forth all we want, but it's not productive.
If you are saying it wasn't your intention to make it seem like I claimed that my senses are totally unreliable, then, alright, I misunderstood. So, what was your point?
Should I be trusting my senses over the scientific method when it comes to finding truth?
Cuz, if you're saying 'no,' then this debate is really about what 'axiom' means, since we'd be in agreement about what we're saying, just not how to say it.
I find it difficult to believe that when I listed the general accuracy of our senses, you genuinely believed I meant "our senses are absolutely accurate and super awesome and can't possibly be assisted by technology in any way ever".
Asking, "How do you know you are feeling what you are feeling?" Is a nonsense question. The feeling is description of my inarguable experience. I know what I am feeling. This is indeed axiomatic under the trilemma. However, unlike many attempted axioms, it is inarguable and unquestionable. You feel what you feel by definition of what the word "feel" means. The sentence structure looks circular, but that's only because it's not meaningful to ask "How do we know for sure if what we're feeling is what we're feeling?" There is no "because" necessary.
How can we tell what we're feeling if not by sensing?
What do you say? Do you provide any justification?
I would tell this hypothetical student, 'Cuz, it works.'
What I would -likely- not say is that the only way we know 'it works' is to apply it to its own results... unless I was trying to make some point about unavoidable error or circular logic.
If you said 'I feel cold right now,' while your brain was being monitored. And, the scientists monitoring it told you they were 99.99% sure, using the scientific method, you weren't feeling cold, your brain was just being delusional at that moment. Would you still be convinced you were right about feeling cold?
@Taylor
"I feel cold" is not the same as "I am cold". If you feel cold, but you aren't cold at all, but in some way hallucinating, it's still correct that you feel cold. It doesn't matter why you feel cold. This is the essential argument StairC was making, and the case for it helps support my position as well given that under my view it's a justified working assumption, it being so close to absolutely true that you can make a case for it is helpful.
Back to the key point. the method I have been proposing is not to use your senses as facts, but take the information of your senses as usable and valid in-and-of-itself and combine that information to produce general descriptions and predictions. Contradictions in sense experience is not problematic for the model's validity, it's part of how it works. To be extra clear, I'll just repeat that this is a philosophical idea aimed at producing justifiable ideas for producing effective decisions and not about knowing reality.
Nor did I say it was.
Reread what I wrote. At no point did I say they were the same.
And, again DJK3654, part of this is coming from the fact you seem to have no real motivation to read anything I link. I you did, you'd be better informed on how much our brain tricks itself every second of everyday. Essentially, you keep underestimating the ability of the brain to delude itself.*
*Well -I guess for this- I should add "the scientific method claims" to that last sentence about the ability of the brain to delude itself.
DJK is correct. The problem with this discussion Taylor is that we have to spend a huge chunk of our time explaining to you what we mean in employing basic terms. Restating definitions over and over again isn't really how I want to spend my free time.
And yes, this debate IS over what the word "axiom" means. Because you claimed the scientific method as an axiom. If you're using your own special, private, Taylor definition of thiis word which somehow makes you agree with us - that's a waste of everyone's time. And you can't have a discussion until you can agree on what the words you're using even mean.
Might as well go into a math discussion and argue that "2+2=9". Then insist that under your definition, 9 means 4.
Someone could invent a number system where the digit 9 and 4 are interchanged symbolically. But it's not exactly a useful practice.
Asking, "How do you know you are feeling what you are feeling?" Is a nonsense question. The feeling is description of my inarguable experience. I know what I am feeling. This is indeed axiomatic under the trilemma. However, unlike many attempted axioms, it is inarguable and unquestionable. You feel what you feel by definition of what the word "feel" means. The sentence structure looks circular, but that's only because it's not meaningful to ask "How do we know for sure if what we're feeling is what we're feeling?" There is no "because" necessary.
The scientific method requires justification and is not self-evident nor the foundation of reason.
This is the problem I'm having. And, I don't want you to think what I'm about to say is a strawman. I want to be clear I understand this is simply my interpretation of what your saying. If I'm wrong in that interpretation, I simply want you to clarify.
But -as far as I can tell- you started this debate claiming you're feeling and senses about your feelings where -as you say in the first quote "is indeed axiomatic." Then, you started saying you "trust the scientific method and its results over anything else right now as a general principle for applicable problems," yet IT wasn't axiomatic. So, I would like you to answer the question I asked in my last post to you, that you artfully dodged:
If you said 'I feel cold right now,' while your brain was being monitored. And, the scientists monitoring it told you they were 99.99% sure, using the scientific method, you weren't feeling cold, your brain was just being delusional at that moment. Would you still be convinced you were right about feeling cold?
So, which is it? Do you trust the scientific method, or do you have some way to check it that does not involve it?
Because -to me- this is really the clincher.
I am trying to see which you take over which.Now, in saying that, I realize we are talking about YOU. Because, I want it to be clear I would trust the scientists. I do take the scientific method over my own feelings. If I 'feel' something is true, but the scientific method says it's false, I would take the method 100% of the time.
Which -really- is why I'm confused you keep saying I'm not taking it 'axiomatically.' I am literally taking it over something you say IS 'axiomatic.' So, while maybe you don't take it to be axiomatic (which is fine), you're going to have to explain to me how that's not what I'm doing.
@Taylor
No scientist will tell that when you feel cold you don't feel cold, they might tell you that it's a delusion, but it's still a feeling of cold delusion or not. That is what I meant. Your brain can deceive you by giving you misleading, inprecise or false information, but that you are getting information is not something science will dispute. Take the case of 'Phantom Limb' syndrome. It's a sensory hallucination, but, you still feel like you have a limb. You can't have a illusory experience if you aren't having an experience. There is nothing contradictory about taking sensory information in-and-of-itself as valid and also accepting science, in fact science requires this. Every observation is just that, and science would be useless and pointless if we couldn't take sensory information as true of itself. What science does is tell us is how to use that information to provide the most reasonable account of reality, including what information may be inaccurate, misleading or false. But this ALL relies on the broad accuracy of experience, if you can't trust that you are experiencing SOMETHING, none of science is valid.
An investigation of meaning. Leading us to reason, then into various axioms of logic and rules of investigating experience.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
We've build our understanding each day, we built a better system. To borrow from Tarski's undefinability theorem, the thing is, we normally build UP. We slowly create metasystems to explain our old systems. Each metasystem has axioms that supersede the axioms in the old system. We bootstrap ourselves up, coming up with higher and higher axioms. Bootstrapping in this matter is not logical. Logic can't say which system is 'better at finding truths,' since logic doesn't care about finding truths anymore than a hammer cares about hammering nails.
Anyway, at a snapshot in our life, we are at some highest system for that moment.
My current highest system (which is different then yours, and very different from my own 30 years ago) has the scientific method as its starting axiom. I have been unable to bootstrap myself past it. It is -as far as I have been able to tell in my 34 years of life- the best way to find truth. Better than everything else, even my own thoughts and feeling, which where my highest axiom for some time. Yet, when I figured out another metasystem to examine the one with my thoughts and feelings as the axioms, I found them to be wanting. So, I moved on to the new system, with its axioms. I cannot justify my choice to you, bootstrapping is what it is. I can only say it was what I did.
So your point is? What are you trying to argue at this stage?
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Anyway,
The 'point' at this stage is to get to a shared Step 0: To agree on definitions.
Once we have done that to a satisfactory level, we can communicate enough to properly flush out our 'starting points' to one another. Likely, that will be the end, because our starting points will be different and no further progress could meaningfully be made.
But, it is premature to claim our starting points are different because we've not satisfactory agreed on the definition of 'axiom,' which is a critical idea to this. Currently, I am going off of the accepted definition (as I cited earlier) "Axioms are primitive statements, whose validity is accepted without justification." "Within the system they define, axioms (unless redundant) cannot be derived by principles of deduction, nor are they demonstrable by mathematical proofs, simply because they are starting points; there is nothing else from which they logically follow otherwise they would be classified as theorems." And, -thus far- you don't seem to be. Since we can't -yet- agree on what the word 'axiom' means, we can't meaningfully evaluate if ours are different or not. So, we need to do that first.
I also have a suspicion we disagree on the definition of 'the scientific method,' but one thing at a time...
This isn't complicated.
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
What do you -currently- trust over the scientific method?
And, what do you trust over that?
Ask this question until you have no better answer, and -then- you'll have yours.
Sigh....
Also, Stairc, you might want to glance at this one if you get a chance:
http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/community-forums/debate/religion/641818-define-your-faith?comment=146
Let's dig into your own definition:
The scientific method, like all methods, does require justification. It is justified all the time by how well it works. The scientific method is also justifiably built upon more fundamental beliefs, such as nature behaving consistently and the general accuracy of our senses.
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
Your own definition of what an axiom is invalidates your question trying to prop up scientific method an axiom. Get your argument in order before demanding people engage with it.
Also, I did explain that there are more foundational beliefs the scientific method is built on. This demonstrates it is NOT the starting point of reason. An axiom isn't something you trust most highly. If it was, when it comes to math my calculator would be an axiom. Not how it works.
Now, are you willing to engage in a real conversation? Because you don't get to act as the authority here. You don't get to set the topic and grade the answers. This isn't your classroom. Sighing and repeating yourself doesn't make you look good here.
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
So, if I'm not doing what I am saying I am doing, mainly accepting the scientific method is the best way to find truths axiomatically (based on the processes outlined in post #156), what am I doing? What -exactly- is your counterclaim?
Tell me again, what -exactly- are my axioms?
And don't just say 'your senses' because I've just denied they are. If you feel I am in denial about that denial, you've not -yet- proven it to me. So, if that is your claim, I must ask you repeat yourself in a different way.
Oh, and -for someone gungho about not being ignored while claiming I shouldn't need to repeat myself- you still haven't answered the question I've asked you twice, and I guess I should ask again:
What do you -currently- trust over the scientific method?
And, what do you trust over that?
Regardless of your opinion of their validity, I would appreciate it you do me the reciprocal courtesy of answering.
The scientific method has -in fact- shown us our senses really really suck.
This is wrong. Like I said, I trust the "using a calculator method" more than I trust any other methods of solving applicable math calculations as a general principle. That doesn't make the "calculator method" an axiom. That trust has been built up by my experiences with the results being beneficial. That trust could be broken if it stopped working.
The word "trust" here isn't a productive exploration of what makes an axiom. Yes, I trust the scientific method and its results over anything else right now as a general principle for applicable problems. Like the calculator method for math. It does not mean it's an axiom, or that it's impossible to invalidate it. It does require justification and is not the starting point of reason. Reliable and beneficial does not an axiom make.
Really? How did you read that scientific paper? With your eyes?
Oops.
So yep, still gotta rely on some senses there.
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
I am not claiming that you do not see the scientific method as axiomatic. I am claiming that a) I do not, and b) you don't need to. (Demonstrably proven by the fact that I do not, so it is possible to trust the method without treating it as an axiom.)
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
As I have already said, I am not saying I shouldn't trust my senses. In fact, I have already said I should, just not absolutely.
Nor would I classify my nearsighted eyes as 'accurate' just because they're usable to detect ink on a closeup page.
You have not told me the method you use to find truths over the scientific method. You hinted there is a method, but you've not stated what it is or how you use it. A system can have more than one axiom. In fact, most meaningful ones do. For example, arithmetic normally has 7 to 11, depending.
DECKS:
UB Faeries [Midrange/Tempo]
RWUGB Affinity[Aggro]
FAERIES TOO STRONK!!!1111
- Fae Prophecy, 201
5678What you said, Taylor, was what was meant by 'generally accurate'. Not that the senses provide a wide range of detailed information, but that the senses don't usually provide false information.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
I said the "general accuracy" of your senses for precisely this reason. Not the "absolute accuracy". Strawmans get boring when used repeatedly. This is more like an invisible strawman though. You respond to my post with an argument that is secretly a strawman, and then when it's refuted it you reveal the original strawman to try to counter the refutation. Doesn't work.
I find it difficult to believe that when I listed the general accuracy of our senses, you genuinely believed I meant "our senses are absolutely accurate and super awesome and can't possibly be assisted by technology in any way ever". Especially in the context of a discussion of axioms, which often involve discussion of the senses and their accuracy. Did you genuinely believe that? If so, why on earth would you leap to such an absurd extreme?
This isn't going to get anywhere if you keep jumping onto nonsequitrs. I and Lithl are repeatedly pointing out that there's a difference between "thing you trust a lot" and "axiom". You seem unable to distinguish a difference between the two. You seem uninterested in even responding to this refutation. In response to the issue of ignoring the definition of axiom's foundational role in reasoning, basically the ground floor of the tower of thought, you just respond that a "System" can rest upon multiple axioms. This is completely irrelevant. On top of that, your own comparison places "arithmetic" as the equivilant to the scientific method here. While irrelevant, I'm curious to know if you think "arithmetic" is an axiom too.
This is just getting silly. Axioms are the foundation of reason, self-evident and not requiring of justification. That's the whole reason they get a special name, rather than just being yet another premise.
The scientific method requires justification and is not self-evident nor the foundation of reason.
The reason you think your question is somehow meaningful is because you confuse degrees of certainty with axioms. They're not. It's not a battle-royal for most trusted method of determining scientific facts, with the winner getting the axiom crown. We have repeatedly explained this. I addressed this specifically just a post or two ago, explaining that yes - I currently (based on the justifications we have for it) trust the scientific method more than any other one for determining the answers to applicable questions. I also explained why this has nothing to do with whether the scientific method is an axiom.
What is still confusing you?
EDIT - Actually, I'm curious. Let's turn your question around and improve the form of it to make it more directly relevant. A kid in your class comes up to you and asks, "Why should we trust the scientific method more than other methods?"
What do you say? Do you provide any justification?
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
Why do you think people always seem to get song lyrics wrong, until they're told the right ones? I was under the impression you were strawmaning me by making it seem as if I claimed I don't trust my senses enough to read ink on a page. Yet, we can yell 'strawman' back and forth all we want, but it's not productive.
If you are saying it wasn't your intention to make it seem like I claimed that my senses are totally unreliable, then, alright, I misunderstood. So, what was your point?
Should I be trusting my senses over the scientific method when it comes to finding truth?
Cuz, if you're saying 'no,' then this debate is really about what 'axiom' means, since we'd be in agreement about what we're saying, just not how to say it.
You do?
You just told me:
You can't tell me 'I trust the scientific method and its results over anything else right now' and 'the scientific method requires justification.'
So, which is it? Do you trust the scientific method, or do you have some way to check it that does not involve it?
I would tell this hypothetical student, 'Cuz, it works.'
What I would -likely- not say is that the only way we know 'it works' is to apply it to its own results... unless I was trying to make some point about unavoidable error or circular logic.
If you said 'I feel cold right now,' while your brain was being monitored. And, the scientists monitoring it told you they were 99.99% sure, using the scientific method, you weren't feeling cold, your brain was just being delusional at that moment. Would you still be convinced you were right about feeling cold?
"I feel cold" is not the same as "I am cold". If you feel cold, but you aren't cold at all, but in some way hallucinating, it's still correct that you feel cold. It doesn't matter why you feel cold. This is the essential argument StairC was making, and the case for it helps support my position as well given that under my view it's a justified working assumption, it being so close to absolutely true that you can make a case for it is helpful.
Back to the key point. the method I have been proposing is not to use your senses as facts, but take the information of your senses as usable and valid in-and-of-itself and combine that information to produce general descriptions and predictions. Contradictions in sense experience is not problematic for the model's validity, it's part of how it works. To be extra clear, I'll just repeat that this is a philosophical idea aimed at producing justifiable ideas for producing effective decisions and not about knowing reality.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Reread what I wrote. At no point did I say they were the same.
And, again DJK3654, part of this is coming from the fact you seem to have no real motivation to read anything I link. I you did, you'd be better informed on how much our brain tricks itself every second of everyday. Essentially, you keep underestimating the ability of the brain to delude itself.*
*Well -I guess for this- I should add "the scientific method claims" to that last sentence about the ability of the brain to delude itself.
And yes, this debate IS over what the word "axiom" means. Because you claimed the scientific method as an axiom. If you're using your own special, private, Taylor definition of thiis word which somehow makes you agree with us - that's a waste of everyone's time. And you can't have a discussion until you can agree on what the words you're using even mean.
Might as well go into a math discussion and argue that "2+2=9". Then insist that under your definition, 9 means 4.
Someone could invent a number system where the digit 9 and 4 are interchanged symbolically. But it's not exactly a useful practice.
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
This is the problem I'm having. And, I don't want you to think what I'm about to say is a strawman. I want to be clear I understand this is simply my interpretation of what your saying. If I'm wrong in that interpretation, I simply want you to clarify.
But -as far as I can tell- you started this debate claiming you're feeling and senses about your feelings where -as you say in the first quote "is indeed axiomatic." Then, you started saying you "trust the scientific method and its results over anything else right now as a general principle for applicable problems," yet IT wasn't axiomatic. So, I would like you to answer the question I asked in my last post to you, that you artfully dodged: also
Because -to me- this is really the clincher.
I am trying to see which you take over which.
Now, in saying that, I realize we are talking about YOU. Because, I want it to be clear I would trust the scientists. I do take the scientific method over my own feelings. If I 'feel' something is true, but the scientific method says it's false, I would take the method 100% of the time.
Which -really- is why I'm confused you keep saying I'm not taking it 'axiomatically.' I am literally taking it over something you say IS 'axiomatic.' So, while maybe you don't take it to be axiomatic (which is fine), you're going to have to explain to me how that's not what I'm doing.
No scientist will tell that when you feel cold you don't feel cold, they might tell you that it's a delusion, but it's still a feeling of cold delusion or not. That is what I meant. Your brain can deceive you by giving you misleading, inprecise or false information, but that you are getting information is not something science will dispute. Take the case of 'Phantom Limb' syndrome. It's a sensory hallucination, but, you still feel like you have a limb. You can't have a illusory experience if you aren't having an experience. There is nothing contradictory about taking sensory information in-and-of-itself as valid and also accepting science, in fact science requires this. Every observation is just that, and science would be useless and pointless if we couldn't take sensory information as true of itself. What science does is tell us is how to use that information to provide the most reasonable account of reality, including what information may be inaccurate, misleading or false. But this ALL relies on the broad accuracy of experience, if you can't trust that you are experiencing SOMETHING, none of science is valid.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice