I've noticed that some people care deeply about the truth, but come up with batshit crazy statements. And I've caught myself rationalising my existing opinions on numerous occasions, rather than actually changing my stance. Even when I did change my opinion, I've often been guilty of minimising my own mistakes (http://astrorhysy.blogspot.com/2015/12/persuasion-users-guide-to-manipulating.html), but this is perhaps something that can be exploited for persuasive purposes.
One of the key founding principles of science is that objective facts exist and can be proven. Underlying mechanisms can eventually be understood, but often require expert dedication : not everyone is capable of understanding everything. There are huge swathes of scientific inquiry I will never have any insight into whatsoever - if I need to use their findings, I've no choice but to trust in expertise. Yet sometimes I feel rather skeptical about findings in these mysterious areas I have no real understanding of, and the internet is chock-full of people who go very much further than this and pronounce the whole scientific edifice a complete farce, cheerily dismissing things of which they have not the slightest glimpse of comprehension.
There are two related problems : how we decide whose opinion gets the most weight, and how we treat dissenting voices. Dissent is absolutely crucial to establishing a consensus. For front-line professional researchers, it's usually possible to come to at least a crude agreement : "yes, if those assumptions are correct, then it follows that your theory is right and mine is wrong". Doesn't mean everyone instantly changes their mind, cos that'd be bloody daft. But it does mean that most of them can at least entertain the alternatives, most of the time. This generally works well enough that usually the consensus is the best approximation to the truth given the current evidence (note that this is not even slightly the same as saying that mainstream science is always right, and I will spit in the eye of anyone who thinks so). And usually - and the is the really important bit - everyone is making the same basic assumptions. Scientific dissent at the coalface of research doesn't go on about gravity not existing or cats being able to see through time or whether virtue can be measured using psychic lollipops. Forefront research is messy, but its debates are coherent and logical.
In contrast, what the political arena of much of the Western world appears to be currently facing (or at least this is what it feels like to me) is debate between the sensible and the absurd. You can't have a meaningful, reasonable, intelligent debate if one side won't agree that fire is hot, and our systems appear to be utterly inadequate to the task of dealing with nonsense. Partisan politics sometimes works well if both sides are debating controversial topics, not if they're debating things which should be axiomatic. Partisan politics makes an enemy of the truth for the sake of choice.
I've said this before, but I'm baffled as to how to deal with people who can't see the, err, blindingly obvious, as it were. The scientific world just ignores them, but there they make up such a small fraction that they hardly ever amount to anything anyway. So academia provides no real answers here, because it simply doesn't have much of a problem with crackpots. Unfortunately that's not necessarily the case in politics.
Similarly, scientific consensus (assigning weights to an opinion) can be established by testing theories and seeing which gives the better results. This largely works, and so far as I can tell is in no more danger now than it was a century ago or more. In contrast, in the political arena it feels as though people are either unable to accept basic facts or weave the most tortured webs of logic to sustain them within their incompatible ideology. There is no established procedure for deciding who's more credible or how to deal with dissent. Everyone must be equal at all times ! Every opinion must be heard ! And with that methodology, no wonder agreement is not possible... the whole logic and moral values of one side appear to be completely orthogonal to the other.
Debates between scientists don't have this problem, because debate with crackpots is never allowed to be much of a thing; crackpot views rarely spread because of accepted (albeit always evidenced-based and provisional) truth. Science only advances, and accepted truth only changes, with evidence to back it up. Compare this with politics, where any lunatic with enough money can say whatever they want on network television. Everything becomes subjective and unprovable.
Disagreements happen in several circumstances, including but not limited to :
- Not having the correct information
- Incorrectly assessing the credibility of a source, such that information can be known but disregarded
- Having the correct information, (possibly) accepting it but not caring about it (what I define as bullshitting)
- Having the correct information, passionately caring about the truth, but lacking and/or not caring about the correct methods to analyse that information
This concludes my pointless rant. You may go about your business.
Originally shared by Michael J. Coffey
Aumann's Agreement Theorem.
This theorem describes something that I've had an intuitive understanding of but didn't have a good way (or at least, not a brief way) of describing. The basic idea of Autmann's agreement theorem is that if both people in a conversation are being rational (epistemic rationality, that is--updating their beliefs in light of new evidence), then it's impossible for them not to come to an agreement eventually.
When I go into conversations with people, I expect that we will be able to come to agreement. I am interested in hearing the evidence that got the other person to come to their different-than-mine view. Heck, I often even go out of my way to guide them toward things that will convince me that their perspective is more correct or accurate than mine. For example, I'll ask them to describe when they came to believe a particular thing, or ask for a specific real-world example that they found particularly convincing or illustrative of what they mean. I seek out people who share different views because they're more likely to nudge my beliefs towards greater accuracy than people who agree with me.
The thing is, when we aren't able to come to agreement, it is usually because the other person doesn't respond with that kind of information. It may be that instead of offering observations that would trigger my updating of beliefs, they instead say something like "everyone knows that" or "your'e an idiot if you don't agree" or "I said so and that's enough." But it isn't. It isn't providing any reason whatsoever to update my beliefs. And I've found that very troubling, but wasn't quite able to put into words why.
Aumann's agreement theory answers it, though. By not talking about why they believe what they believe, and what evidence they have, it means that they can't possibly be even attempting to be epistemically rational. The same holds for those who do the reverse--who say things like "it doesn't matter what stats you have, I'm right" or "I don't care what you say, I won't change my mind." It's both sides of a coin that is completely separated from epistemic rationality. Either they're saying "I will not help others stop believing things that aren't true," or they're saying "I refuse to give up believing things that aren't true." Neither is any good to anyone.
And that is where you are if someone says "we'll have to agree to disagree." At least one person is being irrational, whether by accident or on purpose. That's what's been troubling to me. Agreement is possible--at some level, mathematically inevitable--if only two things are present: (a) caring about what the truth is, and (b) having a conversation that tries to move both people toward it. And I'm dumbfounded by how many people can't get on board with those two things.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aumann%27s_agreement_theorem
(And yes, I know it's not possible for any human to be completely rational. And most people's picture of what "rational" or "logical" looks like is deeply flawed because they're thinking of Spock. But it's not impossible to care about the truth, to seek it out, and to try to balance "I might be wrong" and "I think I'm right.")
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aumann%27s_agreement_theorem
Perhaps, through Toxoplasmosis, many people are actually catshit crazy. This may explain much erratic human behavior. Voting for risky candidates is likely a symptom of this. I think bats have been getting a bad rap.
ReplyDeleteWell said, a lot of good points here. I've found that a lot of disagreements boil down to a core difference in values. Over on Facebook I have a fair amount of discussions with people I disagree with (G+ seems to be a lot less diverse in opinion, at least politically) and most of the time the conversations are pretty rational, but the sources of disagreement aren't usually answerable by science, at least not right now. Political conversations often at their core are about personal responsibility and what people should do versus what people are actually doing. As someone who believes free will isn't really a thing, I'm going to have a strong core disagreement with my friends who think more personal responsibility would solve all our problems. This is a thing that science isn't equipped to answer at the moment. Unfortunately a lot of political arguments come down to perceived right and wrong. Ideally it should be pretty convincing to point out that there are things we can do to improve lives, but whether improved lives are worth the cost is unfortunately a subjective question a lot of the time. That question boils down to value judgments about whether it's right or wrong to tax and redistribute.
ReplyDeleteI have found though that treating other people with respect in arguments goes a long way toward achieving common ground on some issues, or at least having your own arguments treated with respect. Most arguments I don't think either party comes away with their mind changed, but if the discussion was respectful I think both parties can come away with more tolerance for the other's opinion since they've learned a bit more about why that person holds their opinion.
"...if someone says "we'll have to agree to disagree." At least one person is being irrational, whether by accident or on purpose." My guess is both could be wrong too.
ReplyDeleteWe do appear to be able to know some things more reliably than others. For instance; gravity, vs. what meta truth is a reasonable perspective such as politics or group affiliations. Sometimes these more subjectively laden topics are heavily influenced by accidents of circumstance even though we effectively treat them as hard science. They present a convincing picture that may or may not be accurate. Like the toxo case Brian Fitzgerald made above might make risk taking seem more reasonable.
In the case of the more subjective components of social reality like political views for instance, I am pretty sure we do not have pure rational foundations as much as we have an social-emotional attachment to snippets of stories and certain valuations of them based on what resonates with our already inclined biological dispositions. Jonathan Haidt did some great work on "The moral roots of liberals and conservatives" Ideas and how we value them serve as an expression of what we are already inclined to ritualistically secrete as part of our overall biological climate. High test people tend to heat up the social environment more than laid back people. We also act to express that disposition in any number of ways, including the ideas and their corresponding value structure we use as a map - an engine to act.
Another factor I see is we are survival engines on many scales. As such, once an idea is established in our minds, it develops self confirming evidence as part of it's presence, and eats any evidence by metabolizing only the reconfirming parts, while eliminating the rest as waste, along with developing an immune response to anything that might cause it to expire.
I could be missing something(s)
David Gerard is someone who'se been engaged in this and various quests for longer tthan I'd realised.
ReplyDeleteI'd first noticed him when he submitted a short empirical demonstration of frustration with Google (search "google stop asking") to Hacker News. Then discovered RationalWiki, and his bitcoin skepticism. A few weeks ago, his name turned up on a Usenet FAQ from the late 90s dealing with abuse ... and bullshit. He's been at this fight for a long time. I'd be interested in his thoughts here. (And, hey! Not Bitcoin, for a change.)
One of my theories parallels Mark Blyth, Scottish-born economist, who argues that even false models, so long as they function reasonably well within a localised scope, are useful as coordination mechanisms. They get everyone on the same page, and make overall social behaviour more predictable.
See Blyth's YouTube videos on why economists believe in bullshit.
Full lecture (48m, good). Meat isin the first few minutes.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=lq3s-Ifx1Fo
Nutshell, though it misses the meat.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4VTXTDryzv0
There's another argument, made by William Ophuls in Plato's Revenge, based on population intelligence distributions (particularly Piaget), and pointing out that such leaps as causal, systems, and second (or higher) order interactions (unintended consequences) are limited to small percentages of the population. As society, science, and technology become more reliant on these, fewer andfewer people can even grasp the concepts, let alone choose amongst alternatives.
This expresses itself in products, something I've termend "the tyranny of the minimum viable user", but also in media, politics, regulation, educational systems, and much more.
The underlying dynamic is one of Gresham's Law -- more fully, the law of Aristophanes, Oresme, Copernicus, and Gresham, as it ... goes back a ways -- which in its fundamental form notes that two goods or services of differing quality are often treated as if they have the same value or price.
In the case of money, the face-value of coinage is not influenced by the specie grade, where high- and low-purity coins trade together (mostly).
H.L. Menken, and Aristophanes, noted that politicians of particularly high calibre rarely achieve success. With increases in literacy and mass media, there was much lamentation that "the mass of the people don't appreciate quality works". Here, the issue is one of marginal transactions and the inability of the marginal voter or consumer to make a choice based on actual quality. (There are other factors at play, though I suspect this one is principally operative.)
We could call this "human nature", but I think the phenomenon goes even deeper than this: it's based on the reality of a distribition of reality-modeling systems (brains/minds), the priors they've been fed (education, culture), and natural variation amongst these, the result being that the distinctions made by the most effective of these models aren't even sensible or comprehensible to many others. Or require far greaater effort (cost) to asses.
There's also the problem of sorting genius from bullshit, when you can make sense of neither.
Which gets us back to Gerard and bitcoin....
Joe Carter -- Even if both parties are wrong, if they're being epistemically rational, they'll still converge on an agreement. It might not be correct but as Edward Morbius put it, even something that's incorrect has the potential to be useful.
ReplyDeleteMichael J. Coffey Fair point.
ReplyDeleteMichael J. Coffey All models are wrong. Some models are useful.
ReplyDeleteYou might like:
Truth is the antithesis of freedom.
https://plus.google.com/104092656004159577193/posts/by6chFUHRUX
Free speech is a servant, not a master.
https://plus.google.com/104092656004159577193/posts/icThswPh7oE
And:
"In order to cultivate an environment where the truth wins out in the end, you have to be biased against falsehoods."
https://plus.google.com/+JohnWehrle/posts/HaRhfvbQnMM
Darnit, now I have to stay up late reading the whole thing ...
ReplyDeleteOne shouldn't take my science analogy too literally; I was trying more to contrast behaviour in the two arenas rather than the knowledge. Ideological beliefs, even when informed by evidence, have a much greater scope for natural diversity than scientific findings.
ReplyDeleteI think it's good practise to follow the old assumption, "never attribute to malevolence what you can attribute to stupidity". Or rather (at least on a good day !) I try and assume that people believe things with the best possible intentions and motivations. Note "best possible" is relative, and doesn't preclude some beliefs from being only explicable because the person is utterly contemptuous. I say "assume", but what I really mean is, "I shall behave as though is this true and see where it goes". Privately I judge the hell out of people from a single statement, but publically I'll behave as though I think they're lovely. In doing so I've often been surprised to find that many catshit crazy statements come from simple ignorance and that people are willing to change their minds, or at least can empathise with alternative points of view. Yes, even on the internet ! SOMETIMES EVEN WHEN THEY TYPE IN CAPITAL LETTERS.
... but not always, of course. For there are also people who are simply utter shits, and while the road to hell may be paved with good intentions, bad intentions are certainly much worse in terms of character. At that point, or when it's clear they're just idiotic, I generally don't bother engaging any more, there's no point.
I'd also add that there's a very broad scope indeed for disagreement when two sides engage in good faith. There are a whole bunch of issues we can have polite conversations about when we stop hurling insulting memes at each other. That said, there are issues which I feel are as closed to settled as possible, and on these points I become something of an activist. Changing my opinion on, say, Brexit or Donald Trump is probably impossible. Similarly I expect others in campaigning mode to be difficult to reach. So I rarely try. Even with followers, I wouldn't normally expect a single argument to reach them. Changing opinions requires time just as much as it does evidence and rhetoric.
I haven't read any of the links above yet, saving for later. In the meantime, section 2 here may be useful :
http://astrorhysy.blogspot.com/2018/05/the-assumption.html
Rhys Taylor All analogies melt when pushed loudly enough.
ReplyDeleteEdward Morbius Indeed, but everything's a metaphor for Brexit :
ReplyDeletehttp://newsthump.com/2017/10/31/everything-now-a-metaphor-for-brexit/
Personally I think that, since "Brexit means Brexit", Brexit is itself a fractal metaphor for Brexit.
I've read a similar theorem stating that if two rational people with the same base knowledge and assumptions cannot come to agreement, then one (or both) of them must be lying.
ReplyDeleteJoe Carter - I don't see anything wrong with "agreeing to disagree" on matters of opinion or someone's perception of the facts. Perceptions don't always match up. Like it or not, reality is at least somewhat subjective. The double slit experiment is a perfect example. What happens to the electrons (or photons) depends on whether or not they are being observed.
ReplyDeleteAnother example is the belief that the universe is infinite in both time and space. First, it's impossible for us to prove with our current level of technology. However, the fact is that we can only observe objects up to, say, 14 billion light years away. Here's one argument. Let's say there's an observer 14 billion light years away looking at the Milky Way. They might view it as one of the oldest galaxies if they believe in a finite universe. However, we know that there are billions of galaxies on the far side of the Milky Way from the observer's perspective. However, they only see the microwave background. I argue that it appears homogenous due to the sheer distance involved. Yet, if you look at this image of the distribution of dark matter (https://img.newatlas.com/dark-matter-filaments-subaru-michigan-7.jpg?auto=format%2Ccompress&ch=Width%2CDPR&crop=entropy&fit=crop&h=253&q=60&w=450&s=3eea66ab13258a57c36bc5ec83f309bc), it appears quite fractal. Am I comparing apples to oranges? Perhaps, but I think we will eventually find they are more similar than different. That said, let's use a more terrestrial example. City lights in a large metro area. At, say, 2000 feet above the ground, they likely appear anything but homogenous. However, from 20 miles up, they probably have a much more homogenous appearance. Then, from 200 miles up, they appear even more homogenous. I think this would be the case whether you looked at visible light or infrared assuming the observation is not magnified. Magnifying would defeat the purpose of observing from further away at those relatively short distances.
I also have a problem with the surface brightness of galaxies not obeying the inverse square law. Rhys Taylor knows this. My problem is that I honestly don't know enough to prove or disprove the concept. However, I do plan to eventually contact people who are more knowledgeable on the topic. My gut says something isn't right. Obviously, I know it's going to take more than a gut feeling to resolve this issue.
David Lazarus
ReplyDeleteYou said; "I don't see anything wrong with "agreeing to disagree" on matters of opinion or someone's perception of the facts." I agree.
Joe Carter - Even if it is a well accepted "perception of the facts"?
ReplyDeleteWell I think the Earth is only 6000 years old, but we will just have to agree to disagree.
ReplyDelete^^^ A paraphrase from someone I know slightly.
Dan Eastwood - Hmmm . . . there are many archaeological, paleo-anthropological and paleontological discoveries that seem to disprove that belief. Even if dating is off by a factor of ten, Earth is still much older than 6000 years.
ReplyDeleteWhich gets back to Aumann's Agreement Theorem. Either both come to agreement on the age of the Earth, or at least one isn't updating their beliefs properly.
ReplyDeleteThe story of how plate tectonics came to be demonstrated and accepted science (and implications for the age of the Earth) is itself a fascinating story. Told, it happens, by the same person who's come to chronicle climate and other financially-motivated denial: Naomi Oreskes.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/naomi-oreskes/plate-tectonics/
kirkusreviews.com - PLATE TECTONICS by Naomi Oreskes | Kirkus Reviews
Michael J. Coffey - But what about something less clear like an example I gave? Infinite versus finite universe.
ReplyDeleteDavid Lazarus That is not, presently, empirically demonstrable. That is, multiple possibilities exist, but there is no empirical signal of either.
ReplyDeleteThe double-slit experiment is precisecely the opposite: empirical evidence supports _both- models. They are empirically co-equal. Wave-particle duality.
There are examples of hypotheses which have crossed such boundaries, from entirely unproveable to empirically demonstrable. Spectroscopy, radioactivity, space-time dialation, redshift analysis, and exoplanet detection being among examples coming to mind.
Edward Morbius - Yet it is generally accepted as "fact" that the universe is finite because the Big Bang theory is all but accepted as "fact" by mainstream science.
ReplyDeleteDavid Lazarus By multiple, convergent, corresponding empirical observations.
ReplyDeleteAre you suggesting the Big Bang is not well-supported, and if so, on what basis.?
Edward Morbius - I'm suggesting that the theory is full of more holes than a block of Swiss cheese. That's one of the many reasons they keep on patching it. The example I gave regarding an observer 14 billion light years away proves my point. Just because galaxies on the far side of the Milky Way from their perspective are not observable does not mean that they do not exist. Clearly, they do. Otherwise, we would not see them.
ReplyDeleteSure, the Big Bang theory is well supported by those who either A) Believe it or B) Don't want to get defunded and black listed so they can never get a job in their field again.
My argument for microwave background is that it is the "energy signature" of galaxies that have moved beyond the visible boundary (i.e. observable universe).
I also have an alternative explanation for redshift that could be true in some instances. And that explanation is tangential acceleration. In these instances, the galaxies could be moving along an arc path hundreds of thousands or even millions of light years across. At some points along this path, the galaxies would actually be moving away. However, moving in such a way that they would eventually (perhaps in a few thousand light years) be moving toward us again.
I believe, based in part upon observation, that the universe is both fractal and infinite. The motion of the galaxies with respect to the Milky Way and Earth's movement within it is very complex and would take hundreds of lifetimes worth of data to even begin to comprehend. What is shocking to me is that more galaxies do not currently exhibit blueshift.
David Lazarus Just because galaxies on the far side of the Milky Way from their perspective are not observable does not mean that they do not exist.
ReplyDeleteThey do to us. But they are, literally, outside the observable universe of your hypothetical observer, and always will be. We cannot communicate our knowledge to
Empirically, to this remote observer, their existence is not only unknown, unknowable. The galaxies neither exist nor do not exist, precisely as those on the far side of this observer will be forever unknown to us.
Effectively, we occupy overlapping, but distinct, universes. Nonidentical realities.
Truth is relative to the observer.
Edward Morbius said, "Truth is relative to the observer."
ReplyDeleteExactly the point I was trying to make! Thank you!
David Lazarus -- In the context of my original post about Aumann's Agreement Theorem, the only claim is that people will come to an agreement if they're being rational. That agreement could be "we don't have enough information to definitively tell if the universe is finite or infinite." Or perhaps they come to an agreement that it's, say, finite....regardless of whether that's true or not. The point of Aumann's is that a rational conversation will result in agreement, not that the agreement will be true, or that the original question that started the conversation will be answered.
ReplyDeleteMichael J. Coffey - Good point. However, is it possible to be rationally irrational? Or conversely, irrationally rational? Can something be naturally artificial? 😃 I love oxymorons. They are not always entirely mutually exclusive. Another one I love is a bit of a twist on Caesar's Palace Blues. Sometimes you win even if you lose.
ReplyDeleteDavid Lazarus But not arbitrarily so. You are not free to choose your reality. Your reference frame and observable universe dictate it.
ReplyDeleteEdward Morbius - Nevertheless, reality can be subjective in many ways. Hence, the relative unreliability of eyewitness testimony.
ReplyDeleteDavid Lazarus Reality or observation?
ReplyDeleteDavid Lazarus You said; "Even if it is a well accepted "perception of the facts"?"
ReplyDeleteIf a person signals their perspective does not include what I know as facts, I have to make a tactical judgement about what to do considering a number of factors. Not the least of these is; Am I in a position to correct their vision? Do we have a sufficient trust relationship? If not, my attempts will not bring them to the facts, it will strengthen the defenses against them.
I ask; What is the consequence of this blindness and how do I accommodate the impaired vision? Since so many of us defend their perspective as a symbolic stand in for their identity, and holding a presupposition makes whatever we see a convincing self affirming image, then I have to consider the whole context of what's at stake. If the blind spot is inconsequential, or will cause a backfire effect, I do not simply turn up the volume on my facts, even if they are true because that can be destructive rather than constructive. I contextually attempt to take constructive action where possible, and where it is not, I attempt to find a way to defend against the myopic or misplaced vision by for instance never depending on that person as a look out for me since they're boxing with ghosts painted on the lens through which they see.
This particular discussion is really one for another time, but is a nice example of a very grey area. In what follows I'll try and use this as an example of the nature of the debate, which is what I wanted to get at originally - I'm not trying to say which is actually true here. Let's focus on the expansion aspect, since infinity is much more irritating. Start simple.
ReplyDeleteAssume for the sake of fun that there's another universe (a nice little one) which consists of a small, finite number of galaxies whizzing about in finite space, and that space could be expanding but not necessarily. In this scenario, motions of the galaxies can be measured and can really only indicate two things : that space is or is not expanding. If all galaxies are flying apart from each other, then space must be expanding. No two rational observers can disagree on this point. Crackpots (or non-rationalists if you prefer) can disagree with rationalists, and crackpots can disagree with other crackpots, but no two rationalists can disagree.
In the small universe there are clear signatures that it's infinite that can't be rationally interpreted as anything else. An irrational person may always disagree because they can resort to muttering things about "magic space pixes... really dark curtains !!!" and so on. However, as I go on about at some considerable effort and time in the above blog post, section 1, all rationality is an assumption. They cannot ever know with certainty that some irrational force isn't at work to conspire them from seeing "the truth", etc. But within basic assumptions, there's no way they can disagree. As pointed out, we're not seeking Ultimate Truth here, just the one rationality permits (the mistake scientismists make is to assume scientific truth is THE TRUTH, but that's by the by).
[Caveat : the observers must be rational and, for want of a better word, intelligent, which are not the same thing. A rationalist would be someone who acts rationally based on information they understand, but it doesn't follow that they're capable of understanding absolutely everything. You can't proceed rationally on information you don't understand, though it doesn't follow that an intelligent observer is also rational.]
Now suppose that the universe is still finite, but very very large. Ahah, now things get tricky. How can they prove the universe is finite if they can't see if its edge ? Well, they likely can't. Can they prove it's expanding ? Maybe not. But they can definitely measure what galaxies in their observable part of the Universe are doing, and if they're all flying away from each other... well, then they could say that that bit is expanding, or they could say that the galaxies in their local region are moving away from each but that space itself is static and infinite. Given only these measurements and nothing else, both positions are reasonable and the debate is entirely rational : the two rationalists can disagree because there just isn't enough evidence to judge in this case. In the smaller universe they were compelled to agree because everything could be rationally proven. In this larger universe, that's not possible, so disagreement arises. But a crackpot could still come along and harp on about space pixies, and they'd still be a crackpot even though the debate wasn't rationally settled.
The problem is how the rational observers persuade the crackpot that they're a loon. Generalising on Dunning-Kruger (which Plato spotted way before them), can a genuinely non-rational person ever understand that they're not being rational ? A rational but stupid observer is generally able to spot when they're being stupid, e.g. I don't understand anything about brain surgery, but I know it sometimes works - I can rationally pronounce myself to be stupid at brain surgery without having to say that brain surgery itself is stupid. But someone behaving irrationally ever rationally prove anything ? I think not. There's no escaping the space pixies. The failure of the rationalists to convince the lunatic that space pixies are irrational doesn't mean the lunatic is (rationally) correct.
ReplyDeleteThen we get to politics. It does no harm whatsoever to go around believing in magic space pixies if literally the only thing you do is think they make the universe appear static when in fact it isn't. Not all irrational beliefs are dangerous, some are extremely useful. But political beliefs based on nonsense... those are potentially deadly. While a relatively small number of people don't accept mainstream science, or more often merely harbour a perfectly natural skepticism about certain findings, a much larger fraction seem to think that politics is totally subjective and facts aren't possible. And this, if I have one, is my point. We have absolutely no clue how to persuade lunatics that they're crazy, and no way of dealing with them in large numbers.
Rhys Taylor I'll make a confession: I've found myself unable to deal with them, directly, even in very small (positive) numbers.
ReplyDeleteThere are limits to rationality. Which is another argument I've been having, with someone else....
Joe Carter - An excellent, diplomatic answer to a tough question. Especially when mainstream science tends to accept certain theories as if they are fact even though there are competing theories in some cases. They are often not promoted for the reasons I mentioned earlier.
ReplyDeleteRhys Taylor - Something that's infinite is difficult to envision because it's something that we, as humans cannot easily experience. I suppose that's what you consider the irritating aspect of it. Regarding galaxies, the fact is that they are not all "flying apart from each other". Otherwise, there would never be collisions. Collisions might be relatively rare, but they happen. And it's not just single galaxies that actually move towards one another. Galaxy clusters do too. I know you were giving an example of some other "nice little" universe. However, I have the nagging feeling you were referring to the one in which we live.
I do like that you said "the mistake scientists make is to assume scientific truth is THE TRUTH." That is in agreement with what I have said about many theories being accepted as fact. Especially the Big Bang theory and evolution. Both of which have holes. My biggest thing concerning evolution is I don't like the" accepted" alternative; creation. Nevertheless, many animals have remained largely the same for millions of years. Sharks are a great example. Many large cats are as well. But, I digress. Let's get back to the universe. I need to start a new comment because I'm on my tablet and can no longer see what I'm typing.
David Lazarus
ReplyDelete"I have the nagging feeling you were referring to the one in which we live."
Well I was and I wasn't. :) I used a deliberately simplified toy model to illustrate the differences between rational agreement/disagreement and irrationality. That was my main point, I don't really want to get into the details of how much this applies to the actual Universe because that's not what this thread is about.
Now it's true that I happen to believe that the evidence for expansion is nigh-on incontrovertible, despite all the mess, but the details of that should be left to another thread (please do start one if you really want to !). Though I will say that as I've noted elsewhere many times, a problem of detail can be very different from a problem with the fundamental mechanism a model proposes. If you take every anomaly as a solid disproof, then absolutely every theory is useless - and I guarantee that whatever alternative you want to propose will be no different (and to get back to the original topic, that would be a manifestly irrational act). No theory explains everything. Probably never will. But again, please feel free to start a separate post for details on this specific issue.
Rhys Taylor - But is it truly expanding? Even the part that is visible to us? Does redshift, even in the extreme, absolutely mean that a given galaxy is moving away from us in, roughly, the opposite direction? Or could it be moving along an arc millions of light years across? As I previously stated, one thing that very much surprises me is that more galaxies do not exhibit blueshift. Only some in relatively "local" clusters. It doesn't make sense to me. It makes me think that, despite our best efforts and current knowledge of the mechanics of the universe, we are somehow wrong in our observations. Again, this is a gut feeling and I know it's going to take a lot more than that to change scientific consensus. However, the example of drawing a bunch of dots on a balloon and proceeding to inflate the balloon while stating that this is how every galaxy is actually moving away from every other galaxy in 4+ dimensional space is bothersome at best. There seems to be no logical explanation for galaxies to behave in this fashion. Which brings me to another issue and that is the notion that space is flat, yet curved. This gives the impression that space is largely two dimensional and everything lies roughly on a curved plane. This notion has led to another one and that is the possibility of space being a holographic projection. Both of these notions are bothersome. Let me ask, what do we see when we observe space from the poles? Looking in a direction roughly perpendicular to the ground? Do we observe total blackness beyond the stars visible in our own galaxy from that vantage point? Or do we observe many more billions of galaxies? My point is that if we can observe billions of galaxies in every direction regardless of whether we are observing from areas near the equator or areas close to the poles, doesn't it stand to reason that space does not merely exist on some curved plane? That it is not largely two dimensional over extremely large distances?
ReplyDeleteNow, I'll admit that I am not a SME in any area of astronomy. However, I am intelligent enough to understand many concepts and even have a Bachelor of Science degree in Physics. Thus, though some might consider my ideas a little left of center, they do contain plausible scenarios.
Another problem I have with the Big Bang theory is the assumption that elements did not exist within the infinitely small, yet, infinitely massive singularity that allegedly exploded/expanded billions of years ago to create what we observe today. Is it logical to assume that the singularity consisted of nothing but subatomic goo?
Let's set the goo concept aside for a moment and take a look at something we can, sort of, observe today. Supermassive black holes. Fundamentally, what is the difference between a supermassive black hole and the singularity that allegedly created the universe we see today? Both are infinitely small, right? Both have a mass that approaches infinity, right? So, what is to stop a supermassive black hole from eventually exploding and creating what could be considered another universe within our own? If you accept the Big Bang theory as plausible, then this scenario must be plausible too, right? If not, then how can scientists rationalize the universe having been created from the explosion/expansion of a singularity?
Since my two comments are rather lengthy, I'll stop here for now.
Rhys Taylor - Yes, I suppose I did sort of hijack this post. I can start a new one in a bit.
ReplyDeleteEdward Morbius - Sorry. I missed your comment. Well, yes, it would be our observation of reality. That is all we can go by. Sure, if millions of witnesses see the same thing we can come to a consensus. Maybe. Then again. Something else entirely might happen if they don't observe it. ;^) Maybe the universe reacts to our consciousness and is influenced by our beliefs. To an extent, perhaps the universe is what a person believes it to be. Now, does that mean the moon is made of cheese and comets are dirty snowballs? Oh, oops. Did I say that last part out loud? :^D You get what I mean though.
ReplyDeleteRhys Taylor - I've copied my relevant comments to a Word doc. I'm going to edit it for clarity and likely expand upon it as time permits. Then, I'll post it to Know (my science community... for those who are not familiar) when I'm done. Hopefully, in the next couple of days. I love our conversations because you and others who comment really get my brain in gear!
ReplyDelete