Justified True Belief and Hypothetico-Deductive Method

Known unknowns and unknown unknowns!

Moderators: AMod, iMod

surreptitious57
Posts: 4257
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Justified True Belief and Hypothetico-Deductive Method

Post by surreptitious57 »

Objective and subjective truth are not the same. For one is mind independent and the other is mind dependent. And so in this respect they are
not only not the same but complete opposites to each other. And as for the individual having no access to objectivity : one plus one equals two
Mathematics is an axiomatically deductive system of logic that uses proof to validate its conclusions and so is as objective as it is possible to be
User avatar
Necromancer
Posts: 405
Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2015 12:30 am
Location: Metropolitan-Oslo, Norway, Europe
Contact:

Re: Justified True Belief and Hypothetico-Deductive Method

Post by Necromancer »

For the Brains in Vats argument in Epistemology - Against Brains-in-Vats (further)

- it should be enough to say that it remains "religious" in terms of standing and that seeking Truth and elaborating Truth have taken us beyond the imagination of 100 CE! Thus, "Tarski-Disquotationalists" and "Truth-Realists" have the recent 2000 years, more or less, of history on their side!

Note also on plausibility problems for Brains-in-Vats arguments.

"Fiction has always been flexible!"

Link, Blogspot, Philosophical Notes: https://whatiswritten777.blogspot.com/2 ... ctual.html

Wikipedia, Brain-in-a-Vat: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_in_a_vat
Wikipedia, Disquotationalism by for example Tarski: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redundanc ... y_of_truth
Stanford Enc. Phil., Truth Realism: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth/#ReaTru
Stanford Enc. Phil., Metaphysical Realism: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/real ... lenge/#Wha
TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: Justified True Belief and Hypothetico-Deductive Method

Post by TimeSeeker »

JTB is fundamentally broken. The following claim meets the criteria for knowledge: Soon the human race may or may not become extinct.

The probabilistic nature of this claim requires a bounded confidence interval on the meaning of "soon".
User avatar
Necromancer
Posts: 405
Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2015 12:30 am
Location: Metropolitan-Oslo, Norway, Europe
Contact:

Re: Justified True Belief and Hypothetico-Deductive Method

Post by Necromancer »

TimeSeeker wrote: Tue Sep 11, 2018 4:16 pm JTB is fundamentally broken. The following claim meets the criteria for knowledge: Soon the human race may or may not become extinct.

The probabilistic nature of this claim requires a bounded confidence interval on the meaning of "soon".
The sentence "Soon the human race may or may not become extinct" does not mean anything because either way what happens the belief is there for it as it covers all situations no matter how very "soon" or later "soon".

Thus, JTB exists as beautifully today as before. One must actually present sentences that has a question of knowledge or not in it.

For example, "either God exists or God does not exist" is also one such meaningless "epistemological" question because it is a catch-all. Catch-all questions always have JTB with them, but they do not tell us anything!

8)
TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: Justified True Belief and Hypothetico-Deductive Method

Post by TimeSeeker »

Necromancer wrote: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:38 pm The sentence "Soon the human race may or may not become extinct" does not mean anything because either way what happens the belief is there for it as it covers all situations no matter how very "soon" or later "soon".
You are mistaken. The sentence means everything because it encompasses any and all time-intervals between now and infinity.

Taking the modal and temporal dimension into account:

A meaningless statement contains no information (it evaluates to 'true' 50% of the time. Maximum entropy.)
This statement contains too much information (it always evaluates to 'true'. Minimum entropy.)
Necromancer wrote: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:38 pm Thus, JTB exists as beautifully today as before. One must actually present sentences that has a question of knowledge or not in it.
You are correct. The question is: Will the human race become extinct in the next 1000 years? (define "soon" as any bounded time-interval)
1 bit of uncertainty.

The answer is: The human race may or may not become extinct in the next 1000 years.

Logically true, but contains 0 bits of information.
Necromancer wrote: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:38 pm Catch-all questions always have JTB with them, but they do not tell us anything!
The question is not catch-all. The answer is. JTB has no utility criterion. That's why it's junk.

It's also why the "law" of excluded middle is junk.
User avatar
Necromancer
Posts: 405
Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2015 12:30 am
Location: Metropolitan-Oslo, Norway, Europe
Contact:

Re: Justified True Belief and Hypothetico-Deductive Method

Post by Necromancer »

TimeSeeker wrote: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:47 pmThe question is not catch-all. The answer is. JTB has no utility criterion. That's why it's junk.

It's also why the "law" of excluded middle is junk.
That's not correct. Hypothetico-Deductive Method-Justified True Belief has indeed utility criterion. Problems translating science into Hypothetico-Deductive Method-Justified True Belief? You don't see the connection between the practice of science and epistemology?

One link that may explain more, Blogspot, The Transmission Argument: https://whatiswritten777.blogspot.com/2 ... ology.html.
And another, Blogspot, The Efficiency Argument: https://whatiswritten777.blogspot.com/2 ... hy-of.html.
TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: Justified True Belief and Hypothetico-Deductive Method

Post by TimeSeeker »

Necromancer wrote: Wed Sep 12, 2018 5:27 am
TimeSeeker wrote: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:47 pmThe question is not catch-all. The answer is. JTB has no utility criterion. That's why it's junk.

It's also why the "law" of excluded middle is junk.
That's not correct. Hypothetico-Deductive Method-Justified True Belief has indeed utility criterion. Problems translating science into Hypothetico-Deductive Method-Justified True Belief? You don't see the connection between the practice of science and epistemology?

One link that may explain more, Blogspot, The Transmission Argument: https://whatiswritten777.blogspot.com/2 ... ology.html.
And another, Blogspot, The Efficiency Argument: https://whatiswritten777.blogspot.com/2 ... hy-of.html.
Of course I see the connection. It is just that the practice of science (and scientific epistemology) is grounded in probability theory[1] and Bayesian inference (ET Jaynes’ principle of maximum entropy) which is grounded in information theory.

So I don’t need the JTB (or any other non-mathematical) definition.

Utility...

Mathematics is a more USEFUL language.

You can’t tackle the notion of transmission without the notion of bandwidth [2].

And you can’t tackle the notion of efficiency separate from the notion of complexity. What is efficient at small scale may not be efficient at large scale. The distinction between factorial and constant-time complexity [3] is critical.

[1] https://www.amazon.com/Probability-Theo ... 0521592712
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon%E ... ey_theorem
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_O_notation
User avatar
Necromancer
Posts: 405
Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2015 12:30 am
Location: Metropolitan-Oslo, Norway, Europe
Contact:

Re: Justified True Belief and Hypothetico-Deductive Method

Post by Necromancer »

TimeSeeker wrote: Wed Sep 12, 2018 6:54 amOf course I see the connection. It is just that the practice of science (and scientific epistemology) is grounded in probability theory[1] and Bayesian inference (ET Jaynes’ principle of maximum entropy) which is grounded in information theory.

So I don’t need the JTB (or any other non-mathematical) definition.

Utility...

Mathematics is a more USEFUL language.

You can’t tackle the notion of transmission without the notion of bandwidth [2].

And you can’t tackle the notion of efficiency separate from the notion of complexity. What is efficient at small scale may not be efficient at large scale. The distinction between factorial and constant-time complexity [3] is critical.

[1] https://www.amazon.com/Probability-Theo ... 0521592712
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon%E ... ey_theorem
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_O_notation
It's not true at all that science is supposed to be grounded in probability theory[1] and Bayesian inference (ET Jaynes’ principle of maximum entropy) which is grounded in information theory.

Is the invention of a new chemical compound supposed to come down to probability theory and not the fact that you can study it for what properties it has?

Mathematics may sound cool, but is impotent without the sciences themselves, physics, chemistry, medicine, pharmacy, genetics, biology... even psychology.

Lately, I've been working with new experiment standards for Telepathy. How much probability theory would I require for that? How much mathematics? That Priming and other measures may be very useful for Telepathy experiments is due to intellect, the senses for science in general, not so much the (hype of) information theory.

Is there probability theory[1] and Bayesian inference (ET Jaynes’ principle of maximum entropy) which is grounded in information theory for the LIGO experiments or the very detection of gravitational waves? Nope! Therefore I think you're wrong!

What about Einstein's Thought experiments for Relativity theory? Have you checked them out? What about Einstein's derivation for E=mc2? I agree to the use of mathematics, but without his sense of physics and his intellect he would be dead in the water.

8)
TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: Justified True Belief and Hypothetico-Deductive Method

Post by TimeSeeker »

Necromancer wrote: Wed Sep 12, 2018 8:15 am It's not true at all that science is supposed to be grounded in probability theory[1] and Bayesian inference (ET Jaynes’ principle of maximum entropy) which is grounded in information theory.

Is the invention of a new chemical compound supposed to come down to probability theory and not the fact that you can study it for what properties it has?
Cool story. How do you study the properties of an object without taking measurements e.g acquiring information? How do you represent this information without reducing it into a LANGUAGE that you can parse (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolmogorov_complexity ) ?

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_theory
Information theory studies the quantification, storage, and communication of information
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_information
In a somewhat general sense, the information of a given entity can be interpreted as its identity. As such, its information can be perceived to be the representation of the specification of its existence and thus, to be serving as the full description of each of the properties (real or potentialized) that are responsible for the entity’s existence. This description, of course, is one that, in a sense, is completely divorced from both any and all forms of language.
Einstein pre-supposed spacetime and the arrow of time having accepted the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Too bad that we don't know what the ontology of time is. Given that GR and QFT have different conceptions of it that contradict each other.
We don't have a ToE yet ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything ) and all models are wrong...

Probability again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_models_are_wrong

As far as humans are concerned computation is a super-set of physics. Or the colloquial term for 'computation': learning.
User avatar
Necromancer
Posts: 405
Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2015 12:30 am
Location: Metropolitan-Oslo, Norway, Europe
Contact:

Re: Justified True Belief and Hypothetico-Deductive Method

Post by Necromancer »

TimeSeeker wrote: Wed Sep 12, 2018 8:23 amCool story. How do you study the properties of an object without taking measurements e.g acquiring information? How do you represent this information without reducing it into a LANGUAGE that you can parse (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolmogorov_complexity ) ?
Sure, you must acquire information, but don't you study the scientific method (HDM) for that? And the studies of science do indeed require the use of language, but it seems weird to study "information theory" in order to study science.

Regardless of how you study science, you can not say that JTB is junk because, evidently, it is not! Do we not acquire truth through the history of science? Plausibly we do!

"Information theory" will add nothing to solve fundamental problems. The issue is still to invent experiments so to prove phenomena of nature and thus to advance science.

You say the study of "information theory" will make you a better scientist? I think you're studying a cloud of linguistic quirks that does nothing, that adds nothing. Yes, maybe the syllabus require "information theory" to be learnt, but it does not mean it is significant or useful.

How is "information theory" supposed to be so successful? Please, make a case for it!

Much like the Copenhagen Interpretation that has done very little for science after it has been made. Yes, we study it as required by education, but it is nothing more than a point for observing experiments taking place. The rest is air.

What you say seems to implicate the study of linguistics and mathematics for 14 years (2 Ph.Ds) and that this will prepare a person to be better at science rather than a person who studies science for 14 years directly. That's crazy!

Point is, B and T (fact) and JTB are not junk! The Plato definition is highly useful today and will continue to be useful for all foreseeable future. Plausibly so.
TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: Justified True Belief and Hypothetico-Deductive Method

Post by TimeSeeker »

Necromancer wrote: Wed Sep 12, 2018 5:02 pm Sure, you must acquire information, but don't you study the scientific method (HDM) for that? And the studies of science do indeed require the use of language, but it seems weird to study "information theory" in order to study science.
Well that depends on your narrow or broad your definition of "study" is. I have been applying the scientific method over and over in my daily life for 30 years (I started programming at age 5). I have failed at it over and over to the point that I grok it.
Necromancer wrote: Wed Sep 12, 2018 5:02 pm Regardless of how you study science, you can not say that JTB is junk because, evidently, it is not! Do we not acquire truth through the history of science? Plausibly we do!
Only retrospectively. First learned how to DO science. Then I learned how to SPEAK about doing science. I learned the practice before the theory and you are committing a Green Lumbar fallacy ( https://fs.blog/2016/11/green-lumber-fallacy/ )
Necromancer wrote: Wed Sep 12, 2018 5:02 pm "Information theory" will add nothing to solve fundamental problems. The issue is still to invent experiments so to prove phenomena of nature and thus to advance science.
What is experiment if not to draw a boolean distinction? A binary classification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_classification
Necromancer wrote: Wed Sep 12, 2018 5:02 pm How is "information theory" supposed to be so successful? Please, make a case for it!
It's fundamental and mathematically isomorphic (read: identical!) to statistical mechanics. And statistical mechanics is fundamental to hypothesis testing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle ... um_entropy
User avatar
Necromancer
Posts: 405
Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2015 12:30 am
Location: Metropolitan-Oslo, Norway, Europe
Contact:

Re: Justified True Belief and Hypothetico-Deductive Method

Post by Necromancer »

TimeSeeker wrote: Wed Sep 12, 2018 5:14 pmIt's fundamental and mathematically isomorphic (read: identical!) to statistical mechanics. And statistical mechanics is fundamental to hypothesis testing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle ... um_entropy
True. It is a standard part of the physics education, but only that (small) part. It may not have that much to say as you start practicing your physics degree. Even then, it may not be crucial for your work that makes you the next Einstein. That one uses statistical mechanics does not prove the use of "information theory" over classical science education.

You may take the course, "information theory", but does it make you a better scientist? I doubt just that!

"JTB is not junk!" :D 8)
TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: Justified True Belief and Hypothetico-Deductive Method

Post by TimeSeeker »

Necromancer wrote: Wed Sep 12, 2018 5:27 pm True. It is a standard part of the physics education, but only that (small) part. It may not have that much to say as you start practicing your physics degree. Even then, it may not be crucial for your work that makes you the next Einstein. That one uses statistical mechanics does not prove the use of "information theory" over classical science education.
Is it a small part? Entropy exists as a concept in every conception of physics. Thermodynamics, classical physics, Quantum Mechanics. Boltzmann, Gibbs, Von Neumann and Shannon entropy. It sure helps developing a probabilistic intuition and break away from the categorical nightmare of the English language.

Computation is a super-set of physics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_information

Time for a paradigm shift, maybe ? ;)
TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: Justified True Belief and Hypothetico-Deductive Method

Post by TimeSeeker »

More - entropy/statistics is a fundamental concept in decision theory, stochastics, artificial intelligence, machine learning, modeling/simulation (Monte Carlo).

Surely knowing how to think/generate your own models/theories from first principles is a worth-while skill even for a physicist? It teaches you how to LEARN. Rapidly!

I think learning is a more fundamental to science than science itself, hmm ?
What I cannot create, I do not understand --Feynman
User avatar
Necromancer
Posts: 405
Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2015 12:30 am
Location: Metropolitan-Oslo, Norway, Europe
Contact:

Re: Justified True Belief and Hypothetico-Deductive Method

Post by Necromancer »

TimeSeeker wrote: Wed Sep 12, 2018 5:31 pmTime for a paradigm shift, maybe ? ;)
Let me end this exchange by saying that you have not proven that B, T, JTB (Plato Tripartite Definition) are junk.

My scientific experience says that it is true, although in a more elaborated version today, in 2018.

Ok? Enjoy! (Welcome to the Philosophy Now forum!) :D
Post Reply