Capital_Net_6438 t1_ircdt82 wrote on October 6, 2022 at 11:26 PM

Interesting. So "wrong" in context pretty much means "false." Certainly your razor looks quite unwise. The claim that "When I make an assertion, it may seem right in my head, but sometime in the future someone may disprove my assertion" requires some unpacking. Do you mean like for every assertion? There are assertions that are not possibly disproven (in the sense of being proven to be false). I suppose any true assertion is such that it's not possible to prove that it's false. It is true after all. It can't happen that in the future there is some argument out there that makes it seems like it's false. But that's a different thing.

The phrase "possible way the assertion is wrong" seems to suggest a different idea. Perhaps you have in mind different interpretations of a single assertion? On some interpretations the assertion is false, say? There are two things: (a) a more or less clear single assertion and its future vicissitudes vis a vis efforts to prove its falsehood; (b) a vague or ambiguous assertion, its various disambiguations, and various efforts to prove the different interpretations false.

Material-Pilot-3656 t1_ireair5 wrote on October 7, 2022 at 12:23 PM

Thank you for your thoughts. I appreciate the feedback.

I do not mean 'false' when I say 'wrong'. A better interpretation would be 'not true' which does not necessarily mean false. 'Wrong' would include half-truths, part-lies, and the like which I wouldn't necessarily consider false. However they are not true or correct so therefore I use the word wrong.

I think there is some confusion on the application of the razor, and what it does and does not entail. I'll make an example:

Say I studied birds as my profession. Say I found a new species of bird and developed a theory explaining its behaviour. For thirty years I wrote books, gave lectures, and made publications promoting my theory. However, after thirty years, a study comes out with new evidence that completely debunks my theory. I feel embarrassed for spending thirty years of my academic life promoting a theory that ended up wrong (not true).

In this example, I did not use the razor. What I should've done is consider if there was a possibility that my theory was wrong and then analyze that possibility. I could've discovered that there are holes in my theory and that it could be wrong. That way, instead of spending decades promoting a wrong theory, I could've readjusted my understanding earlier and found what was true earlier.

In this example, something could be seen as true if by denying it one would look like they are denying the entire understanding of the behaviour of this bird.

This razor could be useful in debunking conspiracy theories. Often in conspiracy theories, they rely on possibilities of malevolence. However, if you analyze the possibility, you will find that the possibility of non-malevolence being much more likely and fundamental to what we know to be true about a certain person's behavior.

Thank you for your comments and feel free to ask me any questions.

Capital_Net_6438 t1_ireeg3g wrote on October 7, 2022 at 1:00 PM

I'm not sure what the bird professor did wrong. Did he ignore evidence he should've paid attention to? If he checked what he was supposed to check, then it seems like he didn't do anything wrong. If it turns out his theory is not true, them's the breaks, right? Such is the fate of man that our theorizing is not foolproof.

Material-Pilot-3656 t1_irfilul wrote on October 7, 2022 at 6:10 PM

The bird professor did not consider possibilities of his theory being wrong. He checked all of the evidence that he thought of checking, but since he was unaware of the possibility of contrary evidence, he did not check that evidence. Also, while no theory is foolproof, some theories ended up fundamental to our understanding of the universe around us. Two important and fundamental theories that come to mind is the theory of evolution and the theory of heliocentrism. These fundamental theories are seen as true and are important to our understanding of the universe around. Theorists have considered opposing theories for centuries, yet these fundamental theories have stood the test of time as more and more evidence comes in their favor. This is something that the bird professor should’ve done, and this is what this razor advocates for.

Capital_Net_6438 t1_irfjjc2 wrote on October 7, 2022 at 6:17 PM

Checking all the evidence you think of checking could be ok or it could be totally inadequate. Really depends, right?

Material-Pilot-3656 t1_irfk37g wrote on October 7, 2022 at 6:22 PM

Maybe. All I am pointing out is that all of the evidence that you think of checking is not all of the evidence out there. Science often solves this problem with peer review, but it is not the same as analysing as many possible evidences (even once you don’t normally think of) to try to find out if the theory or assertion is wrong.

[deleted] t1_irk3pug wrote on October 8, 2022 at 9:22 PM

[deleted]

Material-Pilot-3656 t1_irkliia wrote on October 8, 2022 at 11:44 PM

Thank you for your comment!

While it is true that the academic world has a lot of evidence behind their studies, this razor would be in better use for theorists and those who analyse the studies, not necessarily those who make the studies.

On the paradox, you are correct that we should not simply accept the new study. The razor should apply to them as well. Whatever theory or assertion, it should be able to explain more than any other theory or assertion to be considered more true. In this case, the new theory provided contrary evidence that the old theory could not explain away. Due to the new theory accurately explaining more than the old theory, the old theory should be done away. In an ideal world, a purely true theory would be able to explain everything and can answer all contrary evidence, but such a theory of everything everywhere does not exist for the universe around us.

I also would like to point out that it is unlikely for one study to completely dispel a decades-old theory like in the example given. In real life, it would take numerous years and many studies and assertions to overthrow a previous theory. I just simplify it for the sake of argument to show the importance of considering if there could be possible contrary evidence and how the razor could fix that problem.

Thank you and feel free to ask any questions.

Edit: Also, it is true that many theorists are very careful about their theories. That would just mean that they use the razor without having a name to it. I am only formalising a razor that people may already use to come up with their ideas.

[deleted] t1_irsymnp wrote on October 10, 2022 at 8:16 PM

[deleted]

Material-Pilot-3656 t1_irudsni wrote on October 11, 2022 at 2:42 AM

Thank you! I appreciate that.

JustAPerspective t1_irpgs23 wrote on October 10, 2022 at 1:05 AM

Any assertion is rooted in subjective observation... which is derived from the limited sensory input a human can experience, over a limited (cosmologically, speaking) span of time.

"Wrong", like "Right", is a temporary perspective rooted what one chooses to look at. For example, Obi Wan Ethics - If you hold to A Certain Point of View, it's ok to lie to a kid if it'll help ensure he's willing to murder his father.

To put it all another way, yes, most observations may be understood to be of temporary validity... Your future self may have different goals and/or intentions.

Which may mean the choices made when you think about what future "you" would prefer... are the ones you'll be glad to have made. Ain't a perfect guiding principle, always; can depend on how far ahead one goes.

Material-Pilot-3656 t1_irpleb2 wrote on October 10, 2022 at 1:43 AM

Thank you for your reply! The subjective perspective certainly is interesting. I do have a question for you though (just to understand how you think). Do you think that objectivity exists and it can be discovered? Objectivity being something that is always true and is always applies everywhere.

JustAPerspective t1_irs80qc wrote on October 10, 2022 at 5:16 PM

"Always applies everywhere" has some prerequisites that don't seem to match speculated reality.

To amplify, the laws of physics warp around intense gravitic points like neutron stars & black holes. The words "Always" may not apply where space/time doesn't work that way, so "everywhere" becomes by definition an impossibility to either achieve or - when considers that the Observable Universe is in no way the limitations of the universe itself - verify on any level that would matter to a human lifespan.

The sun rising in the West is a "constant" only because it has been through human history; the briefest quantum flash on a cosmic timescale. Any number of celestial events/bodies could disturb Terra's orbit and make Sol a distant memory... and we'd never see it coming, because it could be many astronomical units away.

That which humans consider "Always/Forever" is usually an absurd concept in and of itself, rooted more in emotional bias than reason. Or, as Heinlein wrote, "Man is a rationalizing animal, not a rational one."

Part of what this means is that humans seek to validate their emotional reactions rather than question whether they're accurate. Revisionist history, the internal adjustment of events to present oneself as more sympathetic and then believing in that story even to the point of denying physical evidence to the contrary... is a common event among the entitled.

If all of the above hasn't sent you clawing for an exit, here's the fundamental answer to what we believe was the intent of your inquiry: There is what is happening; what can be perceived, and the stories we make up to explain the quantum snapshots of cosmological and personal events we can even perceive... is really only a fraction of what's going on.

There are spectrums of light we can't see... that can blind us; ranges of sound we can't hear... that can deafen us; things we can't see, touch, smell, or hear that will kill us more thoroughly than a pissed-off sehlat... as Madame Marie Curie may have attested to.

Our point, be it ever-so-jumbled, is that of all the things we take in... and use to build our understanding of the universe?
Is just the barest, meanest fraction of what's actually going on.

So any conclusions we may come to are probably just flat out fucking wrong - we can't know enough to understand what's happening, either in the universe or even this world... emphasized by how most people can barely comprehend what's happening within themselves.

Material-Pilot-3656 t1_irso8f9 wrote on October 10, 2022 at 7:05 PM

Thank you for your response.

You seem to hold a epistemological skepticism philosophy. This is what I was suspecting after your consistent use of the word subjective, without mentioning objective reality. I understand this philosophy to some extent, because I had once held similar beliefs.

I would like to counter your objections to the words always and constant. There are a few things that are always real, however, no matter how you feel about it subjectively.

Reality is always real. To suggest otherwise would be self-contradictory, as it would be saying that things that are real are not always real.
Matter always is real. This has been determined through rigorous mathematical and scientific studies that have shone that nothing ever end, but may instead reform into something else.
Life will always adapt to the environment around it, or will go extinct. No matter how subjectivity works, the principles of natural selection are eternal when it comes to life.
Everything always follows the laws of physics, even if we don't know every law yet. You mention black holes and how they bend space-time, which is true, but these black holes bend space-time according to laws and processes that are constant, even if we don't know all of these laws yet.
Life that reproduces sexually will have always sex to have further their species. This is logically consistent and is fundamental to understand these animals.

I could list more truths that will always occur, no matter the time or place, but here are a few to show that truths can be forever. I am not simply hoping for things to last forever, and make logical jumps that are incoherent. This is not the case. There is objective reality, and there are things that are objective.

While I agree that no human may ever know or experience everything, this does not mean that we cannot understand the fundamentals of the universe. Do not think of knowledge as a state, but instead as a process that is continually learning. This is what science is all about, and what I believe we should be all about. We may never know everything, but if we understand that knowledge is a process, we can perfect that and understand the universe around us. This is how science has figured out so much. They are not simply making guesses based on subjective reality. They have understood the process of knowledge and have learned much truth because of it.

Finally, and in conclusion, I would point out the statement "our conclusions are probably flat out wrong" is inconsistent with the fact that this is your conclusion. Your conclusion is that conclusions regarding objective reality are probably wrong. However, if we were to apply that logic to you, I could dismiss everything that you say. After all, it's likely flat out wrong, so why should I believe you? This is my problem with ideas like epistemological skepticism, nihilism, and absurdism, since they are self-contradictory in and of themselves.

Thank you and feel free to ask any questions.

JustAPerspective t1_irt22qo wrote on October 10, 2022 at 8:39 PM

First, the premise that you feel impelled to counter our observations of subjective limitations seems... like you might want to meditate on your own motivations.

Your list of "Things Dead People Insisted Were True" is unimpressively wrong.

You haven't defined "reality" in a meaningful way; as it stands, we're both stating that what is really occurring isn't perceived by humans, so what's your goal here in noting an overlap of agreement?
Your misuse of the word "always" is just what we meant about the sun rising in the west - just because humans haven't yet found an exception, doesn't mean there ain't one.
You don't know or understand the principals of natural selection as they truly occur because you can't perfectly predict which living things will survive or not. You're just stating a vague generality you assume to be true yet haven't demonstrated any reasoning to believe that what you're asserting is factual... so, noise dismissed.
You can't defend the laws of physics while stating we don't know those rules - that's the same as saying "Magic" or "God's Will", functionally. So, again, you're pointing to "the laws of physics we may not understand is the way things are even if humans can't perceive them" as an argument against our point that "humans lack the perceptive ability to understand what's truly happening around them"... because..?
How you dragged sex into this, while managing to be flat-out wrong, is fucking funny, aight? Sad, yet funny.
There are species of life on Earth perfectly capable of reproducing without sex, and are also capable of having sex... as your Google search history may soon show.
Here's the worst part: This information dates back to junior high school science class... so the effort to bestow the grace of thy understanding upon the world might want to back it's ignorant ass up to integrate some of that fundamental science you're claiming to grok.

Then, once you've got a solid grounding in the basics of your tenet... you can look forward to the chance to discuss concepts which challenge the assertions and even the validity, of any science rooted in filtering out the contributions of BIPOC for centuries.

Finally, you may consider the notion that "Always" is a concept dependent upon the flow of time as you have always experienced it... continuing to flow that way. There are places in the universe where the scientific community agrees time probably doesn't move at all, and so "always" wouldn't be a thing that had any meaning at all.

So this is potentially a great day for you. You've learned something you clearly did not know, and you have a chance to explore new concepts.

The question is... what will you choose to do next?

Material-Pilot-3656 t1_irt8jeg wrote on October 10, 2022 at 9:25 PM

>First, the premise that you feel impelled to counter our observations of subjective limitations seems... like you might want to meditate on your own motivations.

I'm countering your objections because this is a philosophy subreddit. Here we have discussions and bring counterpoints to each other. This isn't out of malevolence or any other motivation. I simply am countering your claims. As I have said, feel free to ask questions and counter me. That is what this sub is for.

>Your list of "Things Dead People Insisted Were True" is unimpressively wrong.

Where'd you get that name from? I've never called it that. Nor is anything I said talking about dead people. This seems like a straw man/ad hominem to make my points less valid.

>You haven't defined "reality" in a meaningful way; as it stands, we're both stating that what is really occurring isn't perceived by humans, so what's your goal here in noting an overlap of agreement?

Sorry but I did define reality. It is, and I quote myself, "things that are real". This could be real things that is perceived, and real things that are not perceived. Both are part of reality.

>Your misuse of the word "always" is just what we meant about the sun rising in the west - just because humans haven't yet found an exception, doesn't mean there ain't one.

True. I'd love to see an exception to some of the 'always' things that I listed, though. I chose them because they are always true. I choose to believe things that I as a human even have the ability to believe. If we humans can't know something, then it's useless to everyone. Again, your view of knowledge seems to be like it's a state. I refuted this earlier. Knowledge isn't a thing, but a process or direction. I choose to continue the process of knowledge.

>You don't know or understand the principals of natural selection as they truly occur because you can't perfectly predict which living things will survive or not. You're just stating a vague generality you assume to be true yet haven't demonstrated any reasoning to believe that what you're asserting is factual... so, noise dismissed.

We can predict which living things will survive or not, though. Scientists have figured out which animals will go extinct in future decades due to climate change and similar effects that come from humans. Natural selection is not a vague generality, but a real rule that all living beings are affected by everyday. While I am no biologist, I do understand the basics of evolution and the rules that biology understands guide life.

>You can't defend the laws of physics while stating we don't know those rules - that's the same as saying "Magic" or "God's Will", functionally. So, again, you're pointing to "the laws of physics we may not understand is the way things are even if humans can't perceive them" as an argument against our point that "humans lack the perceptive ability to understand what's truly happening around them"... because..?

Except we do know the laws of physics. All I was saying is that there are probably more laws that will be discovered one day. This is not to say that the laws of physics do always guide our universe. I'm sure there are more laws, but that would only be more evidence for my claim, not less.

>How you dragged sex into this, while managing to be flat-out wrong, is fucking funny, aight? Sad, yet funny.
There are species of life on Earth perfectly capable of reproducing without sex, and are also capable of having sex... as your Google search history may soon show.
Here's the worst part: This information dates back to junior high school science class... so the effort to bestow the grace of thy understanding upon the world might want to back it's ignorant ass up to integrate some of that fundamental science you're claiming to grok.

I dragged sex into this because we are having a formal discussion on reality and truth. Also, I never said that all species reproduce by sex. Of course there are different modes of reproduction. I was very specific with my wording to be only talking about animals that reproduce through sex. I quote myself "Life that reproduces sexually will have always sex to have further their species". I am quite clearly talking about animals that reproduce sexually. Not anything else. Also good insult about my Google search history. Really helps me want to listen to you more.

>Then, once you've got a solid grounding in the basics of your tenet... you can look forward to the chance to discuss concepts which challenge the assertions and even the validity, of any science rooted in filtering out the contributions of BIPOC for centuries.

Don't worry. I understand what I'm talking about. Also, it's interesting that you brought racism and race into this discussion. Personally, I think that science is free from racism because science isn't a thing but a way to gain knowledge. Maybe some of the people who started science were racist, but that doesn't invalidate what they said which was true. If anything it shows that they found truth despite their faults.

>Finally, you may consider the notion that "Always" is a concept dependent upon the flow of time as you have always experienced it... continuing to flow that way. There are places in the universe where the scientific community agrees time probably doesn't move at all, and so "always" wouldn't be a thing that had any meaning at all.

Now we are talking about the reality of time. Time is a weird thing because it is tied with space (aka space-time). You seem to be talking about the center of black holes (I'm assuming, but you were very vague here). While this does seem to be true, we are not in black holes, so this does not apply to us. We have never been in black holes, so this cannot apply to us. Also, it has taken me a certain amount of minutes to reply. No matter what, I can't go back in time and change that amount of time that I spent writing this reply. It will always be a certain amount of time, and since I did not write it in a black hole, time does apply to me.

>So this is potentially a great day for you. You've learned something you clearly did not know, and you have a chance to explore new concepts.
The question is... what will you choose to do next?

Well, hopefully I've shown that I'm not as horribly ignorant as you seemingly thought I was. If there is something that I said that you find incorrect, please counter my points. If you have any questions, please ask them. I'm happy to still discuss this with you. I wish you all the best and respect.

SupermarketOnly1244 t1_is3gyey wrote on October 13, 2022 at 12:50 AM

Irrelevant, but I think Rene Descartes proposed something like this. Though not a razor, but still. Or maybe not? Well, tell me your thoughts. Still I think your razor is certainly interesting but I believe it is flawed.

/r/philosophy Open Discussion Thread | October 03, 2022

Material-Pilot-3656 t1_ir5bfup wrote on October 5, 2022 at 1:27 PM