I can't answer that; I don't know you and don't remember seeing your screen name before.
Just wake up from a prolonged slumber, whiskers ?
Ask around. I have a habit of tripping over a thread after it's died down and reading it from start to finish, responding one after another to any post which takes my fancy.
Drives some people nuts, some people just shrug and go "It's only whiskers, so what?"
Argument from authority is not logically valid but the data transferred in such a manner may be veridical ( of or relating to revelations in dreams, hallucinations, etc., that appear to be confirmed by subsequent events ) or veriferous ( ??? Haven’t found this’n yet ).”
Veridical is "Truthful; veracious: veridical testimony. Coinciding with future events or apparently unknowable present realities: a veridical." (from answers.com).
Not to do with dreams.
Veriferous is from the same root as VERIFy.
The point is that many people seem to conflate "not logically valid" with "necessarily untrue".
Thus only things which derive from logical conclusions validly derived from agreed-upon axioms, or things derived experiementally, are held (by some) to be true.
Which is actually sloppy thinking: there are other things which may be true, but by neglecting "falsifiability" one rejects them -- think of the O.J. trial and "not guilty" vs. "not proven", or of the null hypothesis.
It is not that the null hypothesis necessarily gives a "true" model or account of things, but that it avoids giving philosophical false positives. This is not an absolute good, but it is useful if (as is the goal of applied science) one wishes to enable and to effectuate control of phenomenon.
Because if something isn't regular or reproducible enough that you can rely on it or (in a manner of speaking) "compel" it to occur, then that thing's utility is limited, and it can be left out of the picture as far as being a target of applied science.
But this is a very different thing, though often forgotten, as being logically justified in logically denying or excluding its existence altogether...
Cheers!
( I DO so hope I will not regret this ... )
All of my previous interactions in this thread revolved around discussions / criticisms of the misapplication of logical process thinking and / or the essential ‘ignorance’ of certain participants who persist in misrepresenting the means or methodology of the so-called ‘scientific method’.
N.B. Throughout, I firmly resisted engagement in the underlying metaphysical or theological points at issue as I do not deem myself appropriately informed about such material to be competent to make a ‘useful’ contribution.
In particular, the conflation of ‘truth’ and ‘proof’ as interchangeable expressions or products of the application of the so-called ‘scientific method’ was a constantly recurring source of non-communication. I was also completely frustrated by folks who couldn’t apprehend the distance between a ‘conjecture’ and a ‘theory’ and how this difference profoundly affects the applicability of the Method to process the object at issue.
I argued, in various ways, that a well-constructed ‘theory’ MAY be demonstrated to ‘fail’ but CANNOT be deemed either ‘true’ or ‘false’. This argument, as I expected, fell on stone-deaf ears. Since these folks sought only the most resplendent ‘truth’ and rejected anything which aspired to only some less lofty goal of utility, these arguments were just an exercise in utter futility.
I specifically argued that the so-called ‘multi-verse THEORY’ ( actually a ‘conjecture’ ) presents a scenario where the object under discussion is so completely beyond our powers of observation and ability to interact that it is IDENTICAL to a non-existent object. As no aspect of an alternative / parallel ‘universe’ co-residing with our own within some construct of ‘multi-verses’ is accessible to us, it may as well not exist at all as a proposed object of measurement, observation, prediction or falsification — you know, the rudiments of the so-called ‘Scientific Method’ for proposing and disposing of a well-founded Theory.
I concluded that any energy or attention devoted to the pursuit of such a ‘theory’ was pointless in fact and demonstrated a fundamental lack of appreciation for the method or its application. Disguising this clap-trap with the forms of scientific thought or method and demanding that the offended method somehow produce ‘truth’ about the meaning of the ‘Multi-verse CONJECTURE’ didn’t make it ‘scientific’ at all.
I was challenged, in various ways, to step up and admit the uselessness of any thought or process which, in concept or application, was unable to reveal ‘TRUTH’. Well, I could only respond that that was not the OBJECT or goal of science nor the justification for any well-founded ‘theory’.
I was presented with various forms of ‘magical thinking’ cosmetically disguised as syllogisms and required to ACCEPT these strawmen if I could not REFUTE them. When I declined to play these games, I was regretfully informed that I was afflicted with various defects, deficits or deficiencies in intellectual, moral or spiritual development. ( E.g., “You are suffering from a truncated metaphysic.” — sound at all familiar ? )
In the end, I withdrew from this pointless exercise.
In this local instance, you present the following ‘argument’ —
“The point is that many people seem to conflate “not logically valid” with “necessarily untrue”.
“Thus only things which derive from logical conclusions validly derived from agreed-upon axioms, or things derived experiementally, are held (by some) to be true.
“Which is actually sloppy thinking: there are other things which may be true, but by neglecting “falsifiability” one rejects them — think of the O.J. trial and “not guilty” vs. “not proven”, or of the null hypothesis.
“It is not that the null hypothesis necessarily gives a “true” model or account of things, but that it avoids giving philosophical false positives. This is not an absolute good, but it is useful if (as is the goal of applied science) one wishes to enable and to effectuate control of phenomenon.”
This resembles the ‘form’ of logical argument but, to me, the substance slips away rather like mercury on a porous surface. I can’t quite contain it within a construct I understand well enough to analyze it.
F’rinstance, the outcome of the O.J. trial was a blatant exercise of ‘Jury Nullification’ — this was NOT the confusion of ‘Not Guilty’ and ‘Not Proven’. If you don’t apprehend this clearly, you may be excused for offering this fallacious argument but it doesn’t help your cause or advance your argument at all.
F’rinstance, “there are other things which may be true, but by neglecting “falsifiability” one rejects them” doesn’t quite say anything sensible, to me.
F’rinstance, you last paragraph, quoted above, demonstrates either you don’t understand the purpose and utility of the Null Hypothesis methodology OR ... it sounds good and you don’t think anyone will bother to call you on the fact it has nothing whatsoever to do with what you purport to be arguing. I’ll take the charitable view that you simply don’t understand and neglect to dwell on any other more invidious conclusions.
In any case, perhaps you can see your way through to understanding why I am not really anxious to get sucked into these kinds of threads ?
One Man’s Opinion
21stCenturion