Thinking with Doubt: Emptying Your Cup
I'd like to share with you a way of thinking. It is, as far as I know, the only sensible way to think about the world (Editor's note: now I know a second way). This is not a new method—Galileo pioneered it over four centuries ago—and yet for most people today, it is still as revolutionary as it was then. Galileo said that when we decide whether to accept or reject an idea about how the world works, we do this by actually checking the world, using experimentation and verifiable evidence. We should not factor in who said the idea in the first place—it doesn't matter if the idea came from a military general or a pope or any other "authority." It also doesn't matter whether the idea is pleasing to us. Only evidence from the real world matters when checking the idea.
Galileo was talking about what we call inductive reasoning, the kind of thinking often used by scientists. There are also two other methods of thinking: deductive reasoning (often used by mathematicians) and Alice in Wonderland thinking (often used by all of us). Deductive thinking involves starting with axioms—simple statements that are obviously true or taken as given—then working out the consequences and logical implications of the axioms. Alice in Wonderland thinking involves starting with the verdict, then having the trial later or not at all.
Alice in Wonderland thinking sometimes masquerades as deductive thinking. An example of deductive thinking was when Euclid started with five axioms that logically led to all the theorems of geometry. One of his axioms was that two points determine a line. An example of Alice in Wonderland thinking is starting with the "fact" that the Earth is only 5,000 years old, so therefore men and dinosaurs coexisted, hence the dinosaur with a saddle on it featured in the Creation Museum in Kentucky. There is a logical progression, but it starts with an "axiom" that contradicts all the evidence we have about the age of the Earth.
Before Galileo's time, the best thinkers relied on deductive reasoning and it was very successful in the field of mathematics. But when it came to describing how the world actually works, it turns out that stating “simple rules to start from” is incredibly difficult. Aristotle started with the axiom that all matter is made of four elements: earth, water, air, and fire. He also said that heavier objects fall faster than light objects. His conclusions followed logically from the these axioms, but it turns out that when we actually look at the world—the composition of matter or the rate that objects fall—we find that his assumptions were wrong. It turns out that coming up with simple rules describing how the world works is so difficult that it is the goal of science, rather than the starting point.
 |
| Stephen Colbert reveals Truthiness with a Capital 'T'. |
There is a widespread belief that science reveals Truth with a Capital 'T,' but this isn't how science works at all. We can usually discover if an idea about the world is false by checking it against the world, but we never really know if something is true—only that our most recent experiment didn't disprove it. I'll borrow an analogy from the great physicist Richard Feynman. He compared our study of the world to a series of gigantic games of Chess played between unknown opponents. Imagine that we are just observers who sit in one corner of the board, and we only get to look at the board every once in a while.
Someone might propose a theory, "when there is only one bishop left in the game, it will always stay on the same color square, even if it moves." When we observe more games, we might discover that the board has a checkerboard pattern and that bishops are only able to move diagonally, so that is why our previous theory is so. We now have a deeper understanding of that original theory. And then after watching thousands of games of Chess, someone might notice one particular game where there is only one bishop left and it does end up on a different color square than it started on.
This would be enormously interesting and exciting because it contradicts something we thought we were sure of. In fact, we were never sure, we only knew that our idea held up several thousand times with no contradictions so far. A closed mind would want to ignore or discredit that new piece of data because it goes against something we "know." A thinking person though, would be excited that there may be some new or deeper rules that explain this strange piece of data. Exactly when did the bishop get on another color square? How did this happen? Why has it not happened in any of the other games? It turns out that in this particular game, the last bishop was captured, but then a pawn made it to the last row and the player decided to turn the pawn into a new bishop, and it happened to be on a different color square. Wow, we didn't know anything about that before!
Something vaguely like this actually happened in science. Johann Kepler proposed three laws describing how the planets move. The data from observatories seemed to match his laws. Later, Isaac Newton proposed a theory about gravity. This theory sounded crazy (action at a distance?), but we don't care about that when we are evaluating ideas about the world. We care about whether these ideas hold up when we check them against the actual world. This theory of gravity correctly explained the motion of objects that fall to the ground. It explained why objects of different weights fall at the same rate. In a huge leap of logic (at the time), it also explained the motion of the planets around the sun, and even the timing of the tides of the oceans! Furthermore, it explained why Kepler's earlier laws were true. Hundreds of years went by and no one could find any example where this theory of Newton's was wrong.
 |
| A simplified diagram of gravity. |
At one point we briefly thought the theory of might be wrong because it didn't explain our observations about the motion of Jupiter's moons. When Newton's theory was used to compute the timing of these moons, it was 8 minutes too fast when Jupiter was close to Earth and 8 minutes too slow when Jupiter was far from Earth. (Note that Alice in Wonderland thinking would have us throw out the stuff about Jupiter's moons because we already "know" that gravity is real.) Then a man named Olaus Roemer said that maybe the light doesn't get here instantly—maybe it takes 8 minutes. And he was right! Well, he was as right as you can be while still maintaining some doubt because after all, you never know for sure. Anyway, that was a huge discovery for humankind. We later doubted gravity again when our observations about Uranus didn't add up, but two different men independently and simultaneously realized that this was because there must be another planet affecting things that we don't know about
yet. It turns out, they were right (another disclaimer about nothing ever being 100%) and Neptune was discovered.
The reason I tell you all this is that few things have ever been so certain in the history of all human knowledge as gravity. Newton's theory explained falling objects, planetary movement, tidal schedules, the motion of distant galaxies, and is the basis of NASA's calculations on all our missions to the moon and Mars. There's just no way it could possibly wrong. It's been tested and tested and tested for hundreds of years. We're "sure" of it.
 |
| Gravity can be completely neutralized by attaching a cat (always lands feet-down) to toast (always lands butter-side-down). |
Guess what—we shouldn't have been so sure after all. Newton's gravity does not correctly explain the wobbling of Mercury's axis (Einstein later explained this with his theory of general relativity). Newton's theory also does not correctly explain how light rays bend around the sun, the properties of black holes, or why the universe's expansion is currently accelerating. Even though it seemed so unshakably correct for so long, we now know that there's more to the story.
Now that we made it through all that science gobbledygook, just try put it in perspective with things you "know." For example, are you sure that Earth is 5,000 years old? Are you sure that homosexuality is wrong? Are you sure that evolution didn't happen as Darwin and Dawkins described? Are you sure that withholding birth control from teenagers will improve their lives? Are you sure that you live in "the greatest country in the world?" These beliefs have not withstood anywhere near the testing and scrutiny that gravity withstood for hundreds of years, and yet Newton turned out not to be completely right. What if you discover evidence that contradicts the things you are "sure" of? Is that evidence to be discarded because you already know you're right? (“Alice and Wonderland.”) Or is it exciting and invigorating to explore why that evidence contradicts your beliefs? Why are you "sure" in the first place, even? Because you read it in an old book when you were a child?
 |
| I think the truth here is self-evident. |
You might say that the very same logic could be applied to ideas from science. How do we "know" that there are such things as plate tectonics, global warming, evolution, or the general theory of relativity? And by the same token, how do we "know" for sure that Adam and Eve didn't ride dinosaurs together? Of course the answer, as I've been saying all along, is that we don't know any of these with certainty. We know them to varying degrees of likelihood. We have mountains of evidence supporting plate tectonics, global warming, evolution, and the general theory of relativity. When people try their hardest to tear these theories down under peer review, they have so far not been able to. In other words, we are very likely to be correct about these things. On the other hand, all our evidence about the age of the Earth and various methods of carbon dating point to Kentucky's Creation Museum being wrong about the saddle on the dinosaur. I won't say we know this 100%, but we know it to a very high likelihood.
When people are “sure” of things, it can be because they are afraid of the unknown, rather than excited by possibility of understanding it. But if you are "sure" of things, then you are sure to never replace your wrong ideas with more correct ones, even in the face of overwhelming evidence. This is why science, as a way of thinking, is based on doubt. We do not know anything for sure, we just know things to various degrees of likelihood. We keep an open mind that we may be wrong and we actively search for evidence that we are wrong, because if we find it, that's exciting.
Bruce Lee told a great story about what it's like to be a man who knows things for sure.
A learned man once went to a Zen teacher to inquire about Zen. As the Zen teacher explained, the learned man would frequently interrupt him with remarks like, “Oh, yes, we have that too….” and so on. Finally the Zen teacher stopped talking and began to serve tea to the learned man. He poured the cup full, and then kept pouring until the cup overflowed. “Enough!” the learned man once more interrupted. “No more can go into the cup!” “Indeed, I see,” answered the Zen teacher. “If you do not first empty the cup, how can you taste my cup of tea?”
–as told by Bruce Lee
If you are full of your own ideas, there is no room left for new ones.
--Sirlin
October 23rd, 2007 at 12:00 pm
[…] Sirlin.net â?? Your source of shocking insights on game design wrote an interesting post today on Thinking with Doubt: Emptying Your CupHere’s a quick excerpt I’d like to share with you a way of thinking. It is, as far as I know, the only sensible way to think about the world (Editor’s note: now I know a second way). This is not a new method—Galileo pioneered it over four centuries ago—and yet for most people today, it is still as revolutionary as it was then. Galileo said that when we decide whether […]
October 23rd, 2007 at 12:14 pm
Unfortunately, this article is not based on inductive reasoning. You start from the axiom that there are only three ways of thinking: one where “only evidence from the real world matters”, one which you immediately note has a near-impossible difficulty level to apply to reality, and one which is not based in the real world almost by definition. Behind that, there’s another axiom: If I can’t test it in the lab, it’s not really evidence. An alternative way of thinking that allows non-lab evidence doesn’t exist according to your scheme, which is perhaps why you find it so easy to pick the right method.
The data itself can also prove slippery. Given the story of Newton, in all probability there are many things which will prove vitally important to science and other fields which cannot currently be tested in the lab. I am reminded of the Presbyterian philosopher Robert Dabney, who inducted an entire ethical system based on “obvious, natural” observations like a universal conscience, an innate sense of wonder, and free will. From his point of view, every available data point led to these conclusions, so it was backed up by the strongest scientific method - but obviously, not everyone agrees.
You might not even agree on what counts as legitimate data. Many of the religious folk I know, of every stripe, appeal to evidence they have collected themselves of God’s existence, or of some mystical unmeasurable knowledge that provides this certainty. They could be using the same methods of reasoning you are.
Be careful that your inductive reasoning doesn’t turn into Alice in Wonderland reasoning; if your side has a monopoly on what evidence can be presented, you can easily win every court case, no matter how right you turn out to be.
October 23rd, 2007 at 1:35 pm
To quote from the article:
“When people try their hardest to tear these theories down under peer review, they have so far not been able to.”
The most important part of this deserves added emphasis since a lot of people don’t understand its importance:
“When people try their hardest to tear these theories down UNDER PEER REVIEW, they have so far not been able to.”
In case you missed it:
PEER REVIEW
Just in case you don’t get what the important concept is when it comes to ensuring what “counts as legitimate data”:
PEER REVIEW
The peer review system is designed to inject as much doubt as possible into scientific studies. Certianly if the holders of one viewpoint control everyone’s access to all information concerning the subject at hand you’re not going to get the whole picture. I’m sure you’ve read Orwell’s 1984; if you haven’t, it’s a fairly extreme example of the consequences of control of information (among other things). That’s not really how the peer review system works.
Scientific studies that undergo peer review recieve harsh scrutiny from other experts in the field. It is designed, as was pointed out in the article, to inject AS MUCH DOUBT AS POSSIBLE into the process. If your results are published and other scientists can’t replicate the experiment then not only do you lose credibility for either lying or failing to control for all the variables but the reviewer who didn’t catch your poor methodology loses credibility as well. If you lose credibility you lose the ability to attract future grant money, so there’s a big incentive to do things the right way.
This is almost always diametrically opposed to people who are emotionally attatched to a particular conclusion, such as the religious people you know who “appeal to evidence they have collected themselves of God’s existence.” How do these people respond to challenges to their methods or conclusions? Normally a discussion on those issues either gets very heated very quickly, or those holding onto the belief that’s being challenged shut down and give the other party the cold shoulder. Cognitive dissonance can be painful for people emotionally attatched to a particular issue.
Also, Sirlin: it sounds like a lot of your ideas here are nearly identical to those posited in Carl Sagan’s book Demon Haunted World: Science As a Candle In the Dark. You should check it out if you haven’t read it already, it sounds like it would be right up your alley (yeah I recommend this book to lots of people since it makes arguments about the importance of critical thinking much more effectively than I’m capable of).
October 23rd, 2007 at 9:32 pm
Insightful article yet I’m still left wondering - when will we see a proper video of HD Remix gameplay :)
October 23rd, 2007 at 11:12 pm
Great article Sirlin, “Alice in Wonderland” thinking infuriates me on a daily basis.
October 23rd, 2007 at 11:15 pm
I love how so much useful stuff I need to show people (this, playing to win, good writing, occasionally that one thing with mario and metroid and Tony Hawk) is all in one site I can recommend them to. Much easier to read than any book, too.
October 24th, 2007 at 12:02 am
“I’d like to share with you a way of thinking. It is, as far as I know, the only sensible way to think about the world (Editor’s note: now I know a second way).”
Robyrt, please read the first sentence of this article before telling its author that he thinks with axioms. This accusation was a transparent and poor way to segue into talking about your own ideas, and made me disinclined to care about them. Especially after tf39 showed that you probably didn’t read the entire article, at least not enough to understand it.
October 24th, 2007 at 12:03 am
[…] Read the rest of this great post here […]
October 24th, 2007 at 12:26 am
[…] click here for more […]
October 24th, 2007 at 12:45 am
I didn’t expect to see this kind of article here. It would, by far, be the most unexpected. So, I read it.
I liked it very much, there is always some thoughts to add to our library, and this is a good one that I commend. It is a short way to read a synthesis of many other good books on “scientific Methodology”.
I would like to add that every single tested thing in a lab doesn’t really represent the real observation. For example, a single temperature measurement is “wrong”, but next to the real value. If you want to measure the water temperature, you put a thermometer in it. The thermometer added to the water changes the system temperatures. So, you measure the system “Water+Thermometer+ maybe a bowl” temperature, in reality, not just water. Every single experience has interferences, and the most important of all is the scientist interpretation of it, that can be wrong, almost wrong or is just bound to human interests, even control of information, which is real and already happened in scientific environment so many times, like in the Archaeopterix case.
Good read, good work.
October 24th, 2007 at 12:46 am
Sirlin, are you atheist or agnostic? Or something else?
October 24th, 2007 at 1:48 am
I thought of a few things when reading this.
1. It was very well written. You didn’t call people idiots for believing different things.
2. First of all, the discussion of the bishop made for a good analogy, but it was a little flawed:
“[W]hen there is only one bishop left in the game, it will always stay on the same color square, even if it moves” is a rule about a particular bishop. It does not address an instance where one bishop is captured and another bishop appears. In that case, the rule still applies independently to both bishops.
3. Much of the core of the evolution vs. creation debate should properly be centered around a philosophical debate about the existence of God. Creationists start with far more axioms (and at a deeper level) than just “the Earth is only 5,000 years old”. In fact, that statement is generally produced after reasoning from the axioms about the existence of God and creation. In contrast, most views of evolution start with an axiom that no God (or other intelligent designer) exists, and produce an excellent scientific deduction about the origin of the universe based upon that axiom.
At this point we have no way of “proving” either axiom to be correct. This analysis may be somewhat simplified, but I think it gets to the real core of the matter. Until evolution scientists can convince creationists that there is no God, they won’t win them over. And until the creationists can convince evolution scientists that there is a God, the same is true.
October 24th, 2007 at 1:54 am
does it have anything to do with anything? Many scientists are believers of one religion or another. This does not prevent them from being rationally-thinking and respecting the rigorousness needed in any scientific field.
Of course there’s always that guy that “proved” that women and African-Americans are less intelligent than white males. He is also known as racist and misogynist. Most of his peers regard him as an irrelevant loon.
October 24th, 2007 at 2:11 am
“Gravity can be completely neutralized by attaching a cat (always lands feet-down) to toast (always lands butter-side-up).”
If toast always lands butter-side-up, then the cat in that diagram would land on its feet normally. No gravity-neutralizing situation exists, given those two conditions and the cat/toast mock-up pictured.
October 24th, 2007 at 2:28 am
Forty, I think it’s a typo. Murphy always said the toast would land butter-side down.
October 24th, 2007 at 2:29 am
Tim:
I think you made two pretty major flaws in your observations.
Regarding #2, note that Sirlin never said that the original rule was disproven. Just that from the perspective of people trying to learn the rules from random still images of a game, that it appeared to have been broken, since they had not yet discovered it’s possible to promote a pawn.
And regarding #3, you’re also extremely stretching with your logic. Many evolutionary scientists are extremely religious and do believe in god, that doesn’t conflict with the idea that god allowed evolution to run its course. The real debate is merely that creationists seem to favor the idea that god spontaneously created the world, and then populated it with evidence of evolution and a million year history just to… confuse us? Regardless, the question of simply whether or not god exists is completely outside of the debate.
October 24th, 2007 at 2:37 am
You can often tell who insistently believes in God (even secretly) if you listen or read carefully enough. The theory of evolution doesn’t require an axiom that no God exists. It doesn’t need any axioms. It just needs someone to observe the world and take notes. Evolution doesn’t disprove God, but thanks for insisting on that false dichotomy, all you religious “thinkers”. Only those of us who are not tied to the idea of God can see that and say “meh” either way, still go to temple or church or not, and still think with doubt.
Also, shouldn’t the cat/toast caption read that toast always lands butter-side-down? Isn’t that why falling toast is so annoying?
October 24th, 2007 at 3:36 am
“Much of the core of the evolution vs. creation debate should properly be centered around a philosophical debate about the existence of God.”
This isn’t strictly true. The debate is about whether or not there exists a God as that notion is specifically defined by the Christian faith (more specifically by a collection of protestant sects), and whether or not this God performed the actions the Bible claims it performed IN A LITERAL SENSE. If you move away from that viewpoint then there really isn’t a reason to be a hardliner about this stuff.
“Creationists start with far more axioms (and at a deeper level) than just “the Earth is only 5,000 years old”. In fact, that statement is generally produced after reasoning from the axioms about the existence of God and creation.”
Actually this isn’t really true either. The only axiom required to come to the conclusions of the Creationists is that the Bible represents LITERAL, UNERRING TRUTH. All of their arguments are built upon the contents of the Bible which become “valid” premises based only on that one assumption.
Yes, this has to be an axiom. The “proofs” that the bible is god’s own words/literal truth universally disintigrate into the following circular pattern: “We know that the bible is literal truth because god wrote it: we know god wrote the bible because the bible says so and the bible is literal truth.” And of course the debate on the truth value of the Bible has been done to death elsewhere so there’s on real use rehashing it here (I will say that as an electrical and computer engineering student my favorite counterexample is the implication in the passage I Kings 7:23-26 that the value of pi is exactly 3).
Once you move away from insisting that every word in the Bible is meant to be taken as literal truth, the hardline position that the creationists take evaporates. Suddenly they don’t need to to all sorts of amazing mental and rhetorical acrobatics to explain the observable differences between the bible and the real world, or the Bible’s own internal problems. The conclusions of valid, peer reviewed studies performed within the framework of the scientific method no longer have to be written off as “tests of faith” or “the devil’s tricks” since the conclusions are no longer violating these people’s sole and universe-defining axiom.
You state that “most views of evolution start with an axiom that no God (or other intelligent designer) exists” which is another misconception. The debate here is not about whether or not ANY God exists but rather whether or not a (protestant) CHRISTIAN God performed the acts he is claimed to have performed in the Bible in a literal sense with no room for symbolic interpretation. Again, once you back away from that belief, things open up a great deal. The Catholics, for instance believe that the events in Genesis are not meant to be taken literally, and when considering the “days” in which God created the universe as symbolically representing billions of years, there’s plenty of room for evolution to take place. As far as intelligent design goes, it’s really a thinly veiled version of the teleological argument for the existence of God which makes the same case but which dances around actually identifying the Christian God as the creator/orchestrator of everything, and as such it falls victim to the same counterarguments as its progenitor.
“At this point we have no way of “proving” either axiom to be correct.”
Maybe you didn’t read the article, but the goal of science isn’t to “prove” axioms correct. This seems to be a fundamental understanding of people who doubt the veracity of scientific findings. YOU CAN NEVER USE THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD TO PROVE ANYTHING 100% TRUE BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT. The article says this about the findings of science: “Of course the answer, as I’ve been saying all along, is that we don’t know any of these with [absolute, 100%, zero chance of error]certainty. We know them to VARYING DEGREES OF LIKELYHOOD.” (emphasis added)
The goal of the scientific method (also stated in the article) in actuality is to endlessly attempt to prove prior conclusions false. When it comes to the issue of the literal truth of the bible, it’s pretty easy to find counterexamples which challenge the hardline view, and the people who hold that view do some pretty slick mental manuvers to avoid having to give up on it. On the other hand, when you look at conclusions which have been arrived at via the scientific method you’re looking at a conclusion which has been tested time and time again. There are no mental gymnastics involved: once a consistently demonstrable counterexample to a theory is discovered, that theory is done for and needs to be altered or discarded. The concept of the universe is altered to match the observations made of the universe.
Now to get right at “the core of the matter,” as you said:
Creationists don’t need to convince evolution scientists that “there is a God.” Most scientists do, in fact, believe in God in some form or other. In order to win over evolution scientists, the creationists need to convince them to change their entire perceptual framework such that they will ignore mountains of observational evidence describing the workings of the world around them and subscribe to a belief system which contradicts an awful lot of what those observations tell us.
On the other side of the coin, evolution scientists don’t need to convince creationists that there is no God and I don’t think the majority would ever intend to. What they strive to convince the creationists to do is to allow observational data to shape their view of the universe. There’s certainly plenty of room for faith outside of the belief in the Bible’s literal truth. This, however, is unlikely to happen, as a major consequence of clinging to their particular axiom is the reinforcement of the idea that they have to cling to that particular axiom.
October 24th, 2007 at 5:33 am
Some excellent points made here. I do admit to over-simplifying, in that I neglected the religious evolution scientist. I’m still going over my ideas about all of this, and it was great to get some feedback.
I don’t have time to address anyone specifically, but as a mathematician, let me only point out that the “pi in the Bible” issue has been dealt with elsewhere. Either it is (a) an error in the Bible, (b) rounding error, as the Hebrews weren’t all too concerned with significant digits in their literature (think 30.4 cubits / 9.68 cubits instead of 30 cubits / 10 cubits), and/or (c) there was an approximately 4″ rim around the bowl, and the 30 / 10 are inside/outside rim measurements. Take your pick, but using (a) as some sort of indication that the Bible is inaccurate is somewhat a stretch.
October 24th, 2007 at 6:18 am
Great read.
But please, comment-ers, do not bring up a religious debate. A serious religious debate is extremely hard to hold together without some silly being added to it.
October 24th, 2007 at 6:20 am
I agree that it’s a trivial issue which has many rational explanations. However there do exist people who truly believe that the King James translation is 100% literal truth, that the translation was divinely inspired, and that it contains no errors *whatsoever*. If that’s the view you choose to embrace then even trivial details such as the value of pi can’t rightfully be explained away by translation errors or omission of information since the whole God-inspired thing gets in the way.
Once you do open the door to corrections of such trivial issues as the value of pi then you run into the new issue of defining selection criteria for which parts of the Bible you must as a believer take by rote and which parts you’re allowed to disregard/interpret symbolically. Defining neccessary and sufficient criteria for that selection obviously isn’t easy. Observational evidence for the correct value of pi prompted scrutiny on why the information was represented in that particular way; why can’t mountains of observational evidence in the form of radio carbon dating prompt scrutiny on the number for the age of the earth which was gleaned from the same source? In practice the answer is that people come to the conclusion that 5000 years is correct via the Alice in Wonderland route which leaves only their emotions to attatch them to it (as opposed to the strength of evidence and testing inherent to inductive reasoning); if that’s the only purchase people have on an idea then change is painful.
If a scientist is proven wrong because of some new data that’s discovered then it’s really no big deal (at least on paper… science has its politics just like anything else) since the idea that was proven wrong was formulated with incomplete information. On the other hand, for many people, admitting that they’re wrong about a conclusion they have a strong emotional attatchment to *and nothing else* –the hallmark of Alice in Wonderland reasoning– is the equivalent to admitting that they’re worthless as a person or something equally devastating, and they will avoid doing so at all costs.
October 24th, 2007 at 10:46 am
Jesus riding a dinosaur? That’s so badass I’m freaking out just thinking about it!
Who’d win in a fight? Dinosaur-riding Jesus or Mr. T on an elephant? But yeah, I think there needs to be more Bruce Lee.
October 24th, 2007 at 10:48 am
[…] all the details here […]
October 24th, 2007 at 12:01 pm
I think it is inaccurate to assume that inductive reasoning and the scientific method hold a privileged position. There are several related problems with this assumption. Lets take, for example, the proposition that the diversity of life on Earth is the result of evolution rather than design. There are four main ways to justify your position that I can see, none of which hold up all that well.
With one interpretation you require the assumption that the evolutionary theory better fits the data. This is patently not true in general, although it may be true of certain formulations of the creationist position: a sufficiently detailed creationist theory could account very easily for any data at all. Relatedly, we could theorize that the universe was created just moments ago, including all “evidence” of its age (for example our memories). This explains the data precisely as well as any theory that could “explain” the universe’s development.
Alternatively, you could assume that the evolutionary theory is more acceptable because it is developed independently of the data it explains, whereas a detailed theory as described above would need to be constantly adapted based on data. Not only is this assumption without basis, but it does not apply: scientific theory is constantly adjusted based on additional evidence, and in particular the theory of evolution was developed by observation of the world as it currently exists–just like the hypothetical overly specific theory.
You could argue that induction is valid because it continues to produce accurate predictions, whereas arbitrary and “contrived” models typically fail to make any predictions at all (the point of developing a model is after all to make predictions). This is closely tied to what is called the problem of induction: you assume that because your model has made good predictions in the past that it will continue to make good predictions in the future. This assumption too is without basis. Even though all of the past predictions of creation theories have proved either untestable or inaccurate, there is no reason to believe that future predictions of a creation theory are going to be any worse than those of evolutionary theory (this is rather too complicated to detail, but you can take my word that it has been dealt with frequently throughout history).
Finally, you could argue that scientific theories can explain the data more simply than elaborate alternative explanations. This is equally arbitrary–by what standard are they “simple”? They are simple according to standards like Kolmogorov complexity or minimum description length in many representation schemes, but for every metric by which a theory of evolution is simpler than a creation theory there is another metric by which the creation theory is simpler (again, rather complicated to go into but its well dealt with and related to the last point).
Don’t get me wrong–I swear by induction myself, like most people I deal with–but I think it is valuable to realize that induction itself rests on a foundation hardly more secure than “Alice in Wonderland” logic. In particular it is based on assumptions about the fundamental structure of the universe (that is likely to obey rules like those described by mathematical equations or the evolution of a Turing machine) which are no more valid than the assumption that God exists. And in case there was confusion, I am not speaking to the ability of the scientific to come to definitive conclusions: I am questioning its ability to make predictions at all.
October 24th, 2007 at 12:08 pm
“At the bottom of great doubt lies great awakening. If you doubt fully, you will awaken fully”. - Hakuin Ekaku Zenji
October 25th, 2007 at 1:31 am
101101101:
I have to completely disagree with you. The inductive method really does hold a priveleged position, in fact one could argue human society is more or less based entirely on the assumption that it’s possible to create predictive models. Think of the earliest tribal societes thousands upon thousands of years ago. I’m sure that sat around watching every sunset at some point at thinking “What do we do if the world never turns bright again?”. But, at worst, after several years of watching the daily/seasonal cycles of the world, this question became much less pressing. It just became assumed that yes, the sun would be back tomorrow, because the world always works that way. Of course, in many ways even that statement is an incredible oversimplification, I think many early societes worshipped the sun, for example, and hold onto traditions designed to help ensure it really would come back. My point however, is that there’s no way we would have gotten where we are today, if every human on the planet spent every night in fear of it remaining dark forever.
Honestly, all your points are valid, and contain good philisophical reasoning about how the world works. That said, we do have to draw the line somewhere. As sirlin pointed out, all scientific knowledge is considered highly probable, not fact. But some of the basic assumptions you’re attacking are at the very top of the list of “highly probable” occurences. We’d probably throw them like everything else if we found a counterexample, but that has yet to happen, so I’m gonna stick with it, if it’s all the same to you.
Also, I need to point out that none of the assumptions you’re attacking have any bearing whatsoever on the argument of whether or not god exists, since you seemed to single that out as a counter-example of sorts in your final paragraphi. The notions can coexist quite amicably.
October 25th, 2007 at 9:06 am
Certainly induction holds a special place in the minds of humans. Evolution as we understand it is a process designed to endorse induction: the animals that are alive today are the ones which were able to make the best predictions in the past. Since they have the same structure today they had in the past they are going to keep making the same predictions. This does not speak, from a purely logical standpoint, to the validity of induction any more than the tendency for humans to believe in a higher power speaks to the existence or non-existence of any higher power.
I substituted “creation theory” for any alternative to theories suggested by inductive arguments. There are better examples than religion, but I personally know people who believe humans were created directly by God, whereas I don’t know anyone who believes that the universe originated in high entropy state from which structure has momentarily emerged by chance.
I do not personally have the faintest idea whether or not a God exists, but these assumptions are relevant to any discussion of any statement about reality since they underlie our ability to make statements like “it is probably true that.”
October 25th, 2007 at 9:20 am
I could answer this article by saying that if one must perpetually doubt, one should also doubt the idea that one should perpetually doubt, and should therefore keep one’s mind open for certainties. But that is a minor point.
The major point is that there are certainties where only human-created elements are involved. I am 100% certain that a baseball game becomes official after the fifth inning, or at any time during the bottom of the fifth if the home team is leading. I am certain of this because all the vital concepts–baseball, game, official, inning, home, team, lead–are created and deliniated by human beings. We could change the rules and make the games official after 6, but then the terms would have changed nature.
We cannot do that with the age of the earth. A year is a defined and immutable concept–a length of time. The Earth is a defined and immutable concept–a hunk of rock and other stuff. We’re not allowed to say that by year, we mean eon, and that the term year is simply symbolic.
But I am sure that, by my standards, that I live in the greatest country in the world. Because great is a value-judgement, that is defined by humans. I define greatness in country as a function of economic, political, and social freedom, as well as wealth. Other people can define greatness to whatever standard they desire, and declare a greatest country accordingly. But I have my standards, and I am 100% sure of their implications.
October 25th, 2007 at 1:05 pm
I still don’t really understand what you’re trying to say, 101101101. You agree that induction holds a special place in the human mind, but it’s not allowed to hold a special place within the rules of logic? The same rules of logic created by a human mind, and which are, as you pointed out earlier, being applied to a universe which may or may not exist, and which may or may not follow the rules that we think it follows.
I’m sorry, but I have to go with Descartes on this one, “Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum”. If induction holds a place of privilege in my thought process, then it holds a place of privilege in the universe, as far as I’m concerned. As you’ve pointed out, what else is there?
(The latin is “I doubt, therefore I think, therefore I exist”… commonly shortened to “I think therefore I am”… the full version seemed appropriate given the title of this article)
October 25th, 2007 at 1:11 pm
David, I have often felt that the serious study of games inevitably leads to philosophy, it’s nice to see you pusuing this path and I’d like to see you continue to weave these ideas into your thinking on games.
101101101, I think the contemporary style of resolving the dilemma you discuss is to look at how conceptual frameworks are always grounded, like languages, in particular communities of practice. Which is to say that if you like singing hymns and drowning witches you choose religion and if you like torturing cats and lying about cake you choose science. Q.E.D.
October 25th, 2007 at 1:29 pm
What 101 is talking about is just the Philosophy of Science 101. (No relation)
Here is the most basic argument for science: it works, and other things don’t. When you boil it all down that’s pretty much it. (Seriously)
Creationism is not a theory based on evidence, it is a theory in spite of evidence. Yes, it is possible that the world was created 5 seconds ago, or that this is all a dream. There is zero evidence of either of those though.
That doesn’t make them wrong. And maybe theories based on evidence is the wrong approach. It is certainly possible that the scientific method working at all is pure chance, and that tomorrow it will stop working entirely.
My solution to these kinds of objections is very simple: grab a gun and shoot the person making the objection. If they don’t believe in the scientific method then they have no reason to believe that pulling the trigger of a gun will cause it to fire, or that a bullet hitting them in the face will cause harm. They have no reason to believe that it isn’t a nightmare that they will wake up from, or that the bullet won’t bounce off and hit you, or that magical elves won’t shield them.
When you put a gun in someone’s face, suddenly the theoretical arguments fall away and they become science believers. Funny how that works.
Here is a question: how do we know that when I hit submit that won’t cause the entire universe to explode? We don’t. Yet, when faced with either pressing “submit” or putting a gun to my head and pulling the trigger I’ll choose “submit” every time. I suspect you all would too.
Practically speaking science is working out pretty well so far. If it ain’t broke.
October 25th, 2007 at 1:29 pm
And the world didn’t explode. Science 1, random evidenceless speculation 0.
October 25th, 2007 at 9:25 pm
I find it curious that you use birth control and homosexuality as examples of scientific thinking. Those examples, while perhaps they would benefit from your reccomendation of keeping an open mind, are moral questions that cannot be solved through the lense of science. There will never be any scientific evidence that could convince me, one way or the other, of the immorality of homosexuality; only moral arguments could persuade me.
October 25th, 2007 at 11:29 pm
Toast cat ftw!
October 26th, 2007 at 2:05 am
James Vonder Haar:
I think you’re looking at the question the wrong way. The whole point is that those *should* be scientific questions, rather than moral questions, which is how they generally seem to be treated these days. The scientific evidence seems to have essentially proven at this point that homosexuality is a pre-disposed trait, not a choice. Morality is essentially about “making good choices”. If you don’t get a choice, then it’s not a moral question, and as such, the idea of homosexuality being immoral is just ludicrous, and yet here we are…
The birth control issue, is much more interesting, cause there’s at least potential for it to actually be a moral question. I suppose it comes down to the fact that we should be deciding policy issues like that based on the question “does it do more good than harm?” or something similar, rather than just deciding there’s no possible benefit because that benefit isn’t described in the bible.
October 26th, 2007 at 2:19 am
Can you link some research concluding that sexual orientation is a product of nature (as opposed to nurture)?
October 26th, 2007 at 5:08 am
A-WE-SO-ME
It makes me really happy to see such a good and concise explanation of the scientific way of thinking, because, really, most people just use the “Alice in wonderland” one. I really liked the emphasis made in doubt because, many people accuse science of being arrogant, and science is probably the most humble method of thinking there is. Nothing is taken for granted, but rather “thoroughly tested”.
Also, Sirlin, can I ask you what did you study at MIT? Physics? I’m asking because your way of thinking is the one of a physicist, more than the one of a mathematician or a chemist, for example.
October 26th, 2007 at 5:48 am
Doubt isn’t a virtue to be sought after by clever minds. It’s a fundamental human reaction. Here’s a good biblical example. It’s from the last chapter of Matthew, after Jesus has rose from the dead.
Matthew 28:
16But the eleven disciples proceeded to Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had designated.
17When they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some were doubtful.
They doubted too, except they record it as right in Jesus’s face. Doubt is human. That might be why religions often talk about faith.
Also, those who are 100% sure may have a psychological/biological reason for doing so. It might not be their choice, so maybe we shouldn’t judge them.
October 26th, 2007 at 6:36 am
I’m trying to stay out of this, but I will answer Time Mage. I studied math at MIT (as well as business). Math always clicked with me ever since 7th grade, as you may have read in Writing Well, Part 3. It’s the one subject I had a deep grasp of, that I tutored dozens of students in, that I imagined being a professor in, and that I could end prepositions in.
Physics was second place for me. I found it very interesting, but so damn difficult. I took the hardest freshman physics class offered at MIT (not the silly one everyone takes) and it mostly taught me not to take hardest sophomore physics class.
After graduating, I continued to read about various academic subjects on my own. My interest in physics never went away I guess, and it’s a lot easier to study it from afar where I don’t actually have to solve difficult problems on a test.
Finally, the approach physicists take is *strikingly* similar to the approach gamers take when trying to understand how a game really works, and the approach I have to take as a game developer trying to track down what’s really going on when there is a problem, or when we want to make a certain kind of change. The system physicists analyze is the universe, and the system gamers analyze is a particular game. Even the language used is similar though. I propose theories (or maybe they should be called hypotheses) at work multiple times per day. Then another guy has a contradictory theory about how the inner workings really work. Often my theory is based on some gut instinct or decade-long belief of the fighting game community. We settle these disputes in a civil manner, devising tests that will go one way if I’m right and another way if the other guy is right. And of course, the most exciting times are when it goes a third way, and we realize a whole other kind of thing is going on.
So Time Mage, despite my background, you could say I work more in the spirit of a physicist these days.
–Sirlin
October 26th, 2007 at 8:21 am
Forty:
I knew I was gonna get burned on that last post;; I really, really wish I had some links, but what I’ve read was all in print, and none of it was especially recent (this isn’t actually an issue I follow much). Even if I still remembered where to find the articles, I bet a lot of it isn’t available online (or at least I wouldn’t know where to find it). Perhaps it would have been more accurate to say I’ve seen a lot of good statistical evidence in favor of the nature argument, and to date I still have yet to read any evidence for the nurture argument that didn’t turn out to be mostly inconclusive.
P.S.: This was on the top page of google news just now, though obviously it’s not about humans, but as I said, the statistics keep pointing toward my conclusion having merit:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article2741036.ece
October 26th, 2007 at 3:21 pm
[…] full story here Der Beitrag wurde am Monday, den 22. October 2007 um 21:59 Uhr veröffentlicht und wurde unter light rays abgelegt. du kannst die Kommentare zu diesen Eintrag durch den RSS 2.0 Feed verfolgen. du kannst einen Kommentar schreiben, oder einen Trackback auf deiner Seite einrichten. Einen Kommentar schreiben […]
October 26th, 2007 at 3:40 pm
damn sirlin why you so smart cuz
no, seriously though — this was an excellent read. it tells me a bit about myself, actually, so i think it’s time to take a good look at myself and how i act.
October 26th, 2007 at 8:55 pm
Paul, I don’t think you quite understood the point. Even if you have made up your own standards, are you really 100% sure, really?! Sounds like Sith style thinking to me. :) How can you be so sure that you live in the “greatest country in the world”? To be 100% sure, even by your standards, you would need to know everything about all countries. If it’s any consolation, I live in a country of capitalists, imperialists and bigots as well. (Sorry about the appalling assumption)
Anyway, I’m surprised that no one has mentioned what is at the heart of all this: Skepticism. Descartes, as was mentioned previously, Hume and Kant are great sources on the subject.
grep
October 26th, 2007 at 11:01 pm
Sirlin: Sorry to clutter up your (excellent) blog with tangents, although this kind of article is asking for it. :-P
tf39, on “peer review”: I’m not disputing the validity of any particular theory or study, but the system doesn’t work if all your peers agree with you about some particular disputed point. I’m arguing that you need to inject MORE doubt into science - specifically, doubting the pure empiricism that is in vogue these days, and doubting that induction is the only valid way of thinking. Peer review didn’t help disprove Aristotle, for instance, because the necessary experiments to disprove him didn’t occur to any of his peers.
Leavy, on reading the whole article: Yes, Sirlin disclaims that his is not the only way to think, in the first sentence. He spends the rest of the article undercutting that opener by arguing that induction is clearly superior to the other options in every way that matters. I could just as easily accuse YOU of not reading the whole article, for failing to detect this theme. But of course you read the thing, and so did I, we just happen to disagree about what it means. Gasp!
James M, on science versus disbelief: I haven’t heard anybody arguing that we should stop believing in science, or stop believing in cause and effect. Your assertion - “that Science works, and nothing else does” - can, however, be contested, because there are plenty of non-stupid people who believe that non-scientific explanations fit the available data, and plenty of “scientific” inductive arguments using different data sets than mainstream science that also claim perfect fits to their (custom) data. The pragmatic approach doesn’t offer you any defense against “Scientology works, and nothing else does”.
October 26th, 2007 at 11:10 pm
Claytus:
That wasn’t a burn. I would actually like to read strong, unbiased evidence of such a statement. As far as the worms go, there were a couple quoted sentences in the article that summed up my thoughts:
“We cannot say what this means for human sexual orientation, but it raises the possibility that sexual preference is wired in the brain … Humans have free will, so the picture is more complicated in people.”
Possibility? Sure. Applicability of a study of simple, microscopic worms to humans? Likely very low. But “the possibility that sexual preference is wired in the brain” was always present for those who “think with doubt,” so this study hasn’t really changed anything for some of us.
October 27th, 2007 at 2:00 am
Robyrt: I’m not sure you fully understand the concept of peer review. Aristotle has been disproven, and we no longer support his ideas, due to peer review of his work. Now, in his particular case, the “peers” that did the disproving weren’t there to shoot his theories down right as he published them. That doesn’t really matter, though… many scientific theories hold up for tens or hundreds of years before we finally manage to see through them. It’s still part of the same scientific process, though.
Forty: I didn’t mean you were trying to “burn” me in the slang sense. Just pointing out I was aware I didn’t have ready evidence, and knew, right as I hit submit, that someone was going to end up asking me about it for one reason or another. I had a little more time to search today, and found an article actually on the topic at hand. Unfortunately, this is essentially just a blurb, and I know I’ve read a much more in depth article in the past on the exact same study, but I can’t find it anywhere.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1209914,00.html
October 27th, 2007 at 2:03 am
“James M, on science versus disbelief: I haven’t heard anybody arguing that we should stop believing in science, or stop believing in cause and effect. Your assertion - “that Science works, and nothing else does” - can, however, be contested, because there are plenty of non-stupid people who believe that non-scientific explanations fit the available data, and plenty of “scientific” inductive arguments using different data sets than mainstream science that also claim perfect fits to their (custom) data. The pragmatic approach doesn’t offer you any defense against “Scientology works, and nothing else does”.
Scientology does not lead to the creation of cars and computers. Religious thought did not lead to Blue Ray players. The Catholic Church didn’t put a man on the moon by praying hard.
Science is not “here is some data, now I’ll come up with a theory.” That is not science, that is speculation. There are literally an infinite number of theories that fit any data. Maybe the world was made by magical elves. Maybe the world is just a dream. Maybe we are all robots. Maybe everyone in the world except for you is a robot and you live in a carefully constructed menagerie. Maybe the earth is a marble in giant alien’s collection. All possible.
When I say that science “works” I mean more than scientific theories fit available data - coming up with a theory that fits data is trivially easy. (”Unexplainable magic elves did this” is theory that fits all available data) I mean the scientific process works and is repeatable - it allows us to create testable, predictive theories, furthers our understanding of the world, and advances human progress.
The science of genetics allows us to create genetically modified foods that are resistant to diseases. “Magical elves created food” does not.
Nearly every advancement in human history is due to the scientific process and not due to defective other processes that have mostly impeded human progress. That is what I mean when I say “science works”, the results of the scientific method are all around you. The results of scientology are not.
The scientific method told us that diseases were caused by microbes and gave us a strategy to fight them; religious reasoning told us diseases were caused by evil spirits and gave us no effective way to combat them. Something as simple as “washing your hands” is derived from scientific reasoning, not religious reasoning. After all, washing your hands doesn’t wash away the evil spirits in your blood no?
October 27th, 2007 at 4:52 am
Ah, I see, thanks for the reply, Sirlin. My “radar” to detect fellow physics graduates has only partially failed, then.
Also, although my goal right now is being a radiophysicist in an hospital, it’s really good to know that the hypothesis - experiment - hypothesis validation/rejection method (the scientific method) is used in video game development. Who knows, maybe it will be useful to me in the future if I somehow end in the video game industry (which I’d like, but I doubt, given my average at best programming capabilities).
Also, Forty and others, regarding other things explaining the data apart from science, there is a crucial difference: A good scientific theory not only does explain the available data (that is a given, as James M said), but can also make predictions. If a theory that fits previous known data predicts, let’s say, an unknown property of a known particle, and that property is then discovered on the particle, the theory works. That’s also why there are very little scientific theories that have been around for a lot of time that are proved totally wrong. Newton’s Gravity theory is only wrong in the realm of high speeds and masses, but is perfectly good when you’re not approaching those limits, where the more complete Relativity comes into play.
That way, science is able to progress, since scientists can step on others works and make another step in the effort to comprehend the universe.
October 27th, 2007 at 5:21 am
It cannot be said enough times that if the standard is simply “the theory fits the data” that there are infinite theories for everything, each with equal merit. Maybe gravity is actually magical elves pushing on things…because they just feel like it and are bored…
October 27th, 2007 at 5:41 am
However the “magical elves did it”, while explaining everything (current and future) can not make predictions, because of its vagueness. Vagueness that coincidentally is the reason why it explains everything.
October 30th, 2007 at 12:19 am
If I give you $10 Sirlin, will you give me a dinosaur to ride?
October 30th, 2007 at 1:57 am
Just nitpicking, but inductive reasoning (i.e. generalizing from the evidence) and hopothetico-deductive reasoning (forming a hypothesis and then making experiments that might falsify it) are two different things.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothetico-deductive_model
October 30th, 2007 at 1:59 am
Claytus:
Interesting study (or blurb of a study), thanks. That still seems pretty far away from “the scientific evidence seems to have essentially proven at this point that homosexuality is a pre-disposed trait, not a choice,” though.
Keep in mind there is a difference between “choice” and “result of upbringing.” I believe the contention is between homosexuality as a genetic predisposition and as a result of upbringing. Otherwise, you’re not really studying nature vs. nurture.
October 30th, 2007 at 6:06 am
Honestly, I think you’ve read a bit too deeply into my intial comment. When I said “choice”, I meant something more along the lines that someone doesn’t suddenly wake up one day when they’re 30 and say “I’m going to stop being gay…. now!”. Now, I think I would agree with the meaning you assumed, so you aren’t wrong, but I wouldn’t have made quite so strong a statement about it having been proven one way or the other.
My feelings regarding the “nature vs. nurture” arguments are that in a practical sense they don’t really matter. It would be interesting to know the answer… but either way, it’s not a choice, certainly not in the sense I wrote above.
October 30th, 2007 at 6:00 pm
Well, you sure took the long way around to starting a religious debate.
October 31st, 2007 at 2:00 am
Claytus:
Thanks for clearing that up. Well, I definitely don’t feel that what you’re attracted to is a “choice” in the sense that you choose what you’re going to eat for lunch today.
I’m more interested in the origins of physical/sexual attraction preference. Maybe we’ll never know that much more about it in my lifetime. :(
October 31st, 2007 at 9:59 am
I don’t have much I want to add (except it’s a great article) but I do want to say that this actually does tie into a lot of what you said in previous articles. No one should be surprised you take a position like this. After all, “Alice in Wonderland”-type thinking is a hallmark of the scrub who attaches to an axiom involving perceived game balance. We’ve really come full circle here. :)
November 6th, 2007 at 5:06 am
It’s odd, I’ve always figured Sirlin wasn’t religious just based on his ideas of the gaming world. Odd how understanding the rules of video games lets one understand how the physics of the universe are the ‘rules’ of the world and life and things like radar, computers, etc. are all ‘exploits’ of those rules. Imagine if it was a game and someone was like ‘quit abusing the laws of thermodynamics, the gas laws, and the laws of motion to make combustion engines.’
I suppose you’ve probably wrestled with the question of reality as a simulation plenty before, too, huh Sirlin?
November 6th, 2007 at 6:53 am
/b/rother, awesome comments. You can bet your last dollar that if certain game companies ran the universe, they would ban the use of combustion engines as an exploit. They’d say it’s not in the spirit of the universe.
I don’t know what to say about reality, other than to acknowledge that our understanding of it is so limited. If only we could peak outside the universe to see that what we call the universe is really just the membrane where two or more 12 dimensional globs happen to be touching, then we’d have some perspective. I’m pretty sure it’s either that or that you’d find the universe is resting on a giant turtle, with “turtles all the way down.” Needs more testing to know which is right.
November 7th, 2007 at 11:22 am
So something like…
http://concepttshirts.co.uk/tshirts/wp-content/uploads/2006/10/discworld.gif ?
December 6th, 2007 at 2:38 am
I’ve got to say…I literally LOL’d at the “ban on combustion engines” statement.
December 6th, 2007 at 5:21 am
Excellent and very interesting article.
As cliche as it may sound I’ve always agreed with Socrates’ statement:
“The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing.”
This fits perfectly to this article and to my way of thinking.
It’s interesting how the more knowledge I gather about a certain subject myself, i find that there’s so much more to know about it that I really know nothing.
Regarding the most current explanations of Reality, the universe, etc. I really recommend that people watch “What the bleed do we know”. It really makes you think and leaves you wanting more. At least that happened to me. It’s a documovie with quantum physicists, philosophers, mathematicians and other “thinkers” trying to explain matter, reality, the mind, the body, God, etc. Very interesting it you haven’t seen it. Highly recommended.
December 19th, 2007 at 12:38 pm
Right on, Sirlin. I wasn’t expecting a scorching blast to the creationists when I came here, but I certainly enjoyed the article :)
There’s only one thing certain in this universe. GTA IV is gonna kick ass.
January 1st, 2008 at 5:27 am
Also, about the pi argument, I would not fault a book for failing to provide a set of measurements, namely circumference and diameter, that are related by a factor of pi. Pi is an irrational number, and no finitely long book can present a measured circumference that matches a measured diameter for a given circle.
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Great Work Sirlin. After reading through your playing to win guide, I now have my Firefox tabbed with every single interesting article of yours. Starting with the writer series. This one’s another gem! Keep up the great work!
January 25th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
Good article, but there is one thing people need to be careful of: the distinction between “is” and “ought.” Attempting to produce an “is” from an “ought” is the Alice-in-Wonderland thinking we are already familiar with. People are less familiar with the other side of things. No amount of “is” statements can produce an “ought” statement; they can only take you from one “ought” to another. I mention this, of course, because of the “Are you sure that homosexuality is wrong?” question. It’s the odd man out as the other statements don’t concern themselves with morality, though the latter two require some metric by which to measure “better” and “greatest.”
Logic has nothing in and of itself to say about morality. The usual argument for science “proving that homosexuality isn’t wrong” is predicated on an important (and usually unrecognized) axiom that if it is by nature it must be morally all right. One counterargument might be that people by nature also get murderous impulses when angry, and we continue to think that carrying those impulses out would be wrong in spite of the fact that aggression is also completely natural. So this argument could support a position that homosexuality isn’t wrong but that the actual fact of having homosexual sex is wrong (which is precisely the position that the Catholic church actually takes).
(Disclaimer: I get to these things so late that I don’t think anyone will actually read this, much less bother to mistake my point about the separation between kinds of assertions to mean that I’m intolerant of gays, but in actual fact I think that consensual whatever is okay as long as it doesn’t trod upon any other agreements one of the parties might have made beforehand.)
February 13th, 2008 at 11:04 pm
Why is this article gone? It was my favorite on this whole site.
February 14th, 2008 at 2:13 am
SuperDoodleMan: Technical difficulties, but the article is back now. Thanks for pointing out the problem. (Damn you Wordpress.)
February 14th, 2008 at 7:44 pm
Viz, there’s one crucial difference on the parallelism between homosexuality->homosexual acts and homicidal impulses->homicide: if you commit murder, you are harming someone, and that’s pretty much undeniable. If homosexual acts (sex) are among consenting individuals, no one is hurt. At all.
And that’s something the Catholic Church doesn’t seem to acknowledge (or rather, doesn’t want).
May 10th, 2008 at 11:35 am
yea!! It is great article Sirlin!
“Alice in Wonderland” thinking infuriates me on a daily basis.
good!!!
May 10th, 2008 at 11:36 am
yea!! It is great article Sirlin!
good!!!
May 20th, 2008 at 2:11 am
Willingness to accept that third option, or even hope for it, is what seperates “Wonderland” thinkers from “Deductive” ones. If someone showed me evidence that scewed the way I see the world, I would ebrace it. I am fairly entertained when people frown upon science in general, but use it when it happens to support their own needs.
June 17th, 2008 at 11:36 am
So, when is the next character update of HD Remix?
September 23rd, 2008 at 7:02 am
“For example, are you sure that Earth is 5,000 years old? Are you sure that homosexuality is wrong? Are you sure that evolution didn’t happen as Darwin and Dawkins described? Are you sure that withholding birth control from teenagers will improve their lives? Are you sure that you live in ‘the greatest country in the world?’”
I’m a religious fanatic. I say that to be honest in where I am coming from.
I’m sure the earth is well over 5,000 years old.
Homosexuality… what does “wrong” mean?
Evolution as Darwin and Dawkins described? It was a long explanation. I definately see evolution at work. Does it explain the beginnings of life, I don’t think so. they were entirely correct, but I think they were on to something great. It is unfortunate their work has been canonized as scripture by certain groups.
Witholding birth control… what does “improve” mean?
I live in the best country, of the ones I have studied, for me. Is it the best country for everyone? I doubt it, everyone would be here now if it were ;)
Be careful with subjective statements.