Is the Star, Proxima Centauri Real?

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2561
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: Is the Star, Proxima Centauri Real?

Post by Flannel Jesus »

You agreed with me that astronomy can, in principle, be wrong. I know what it means for a realist to say "astronomy can be wrong". I don't know what it means for an anti realist who says "all truths are conditioned upon fsks". How is it possible for astronomy to be wrong, about any particular question within its realm of study, if "all truths are conditioned upon an FSK"?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12235
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Is the Star, Proxima Centauri Real?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 9:58 am You agreed with me that astronomy can, in principle, be wrong. I know what it means for a realist to say "astronomy can be wrong". I don't know what it means for an anti realist who says "all truths are conditioned upon fsks". How is it possible for astronomy to be wrong, about any particular question within its realm of study, if "all truths are conditioned upon an FSK"?
OK, it is this,

all FSK-ed truths are conditioned upon a specific FSK"

If a FSK [say astronomy] rejected a proposition in accordance to its FSK conditions, it cannot qualify as a astronomy-FSK truth, thus excluded from that "all FSK-ed truths"

Say, the astronomy-FSK has 100 truths conditioned upon the astronomy-FSK.
So, all 100 astronomy FSK truths are conditions upon the astronomy-FSK.

If based upon evidence, one to the truth is false and rejected by the astronomy-FSK,
then,
all 99 astronomy FSK truths are conditions upon the astronomy-FSK

So the general principle still stand;
all FSK-ed truths are conditioned upon a specific FSK"
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2561
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: Is the Star, Proxima Centauri Real?

Post by Flannel Jesus »

I have no idea what all of that stuff is.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12235
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Is the Star, Proxima Centauri Real?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 10:21 am I have no idea what all of that stuff is.
Give it a pass because I can't understand your question or your frame.
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2561
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: Is the Star, Proxima Centauri Real?

Post by Flannel Jesus »

If all truths are conditioned upon fsks, then the idea that astronomy could be wrong about something doesn't make sense. Astronomy can't be wrong, because according to the astronomy fsk, astronomy is correct.

Realists don't have this problem.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Is the Star, Proxima Centauri Real?

Post by Iwannaplato »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 10:21 am I have no idea what all of that stuff is.
I think my best interpretation of what he's saying is that fsks can, according to their own criteria, be revised, either by new data or reevaluation according to the fsk.

It would be clearer if he said All astronomy conclusions are conditioned on the astronomy fsk. These would be considered true within that fsk, but it is possible that the set of conclusions and any particular one could be downgraded.

He calls them 'truths' not conclusions and I think that adds to the confusion.
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2561
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: Is the Star, Proxima Centauri Real?

Post by Flannel Jesus »

Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 12:01 pm
Flannel Jesus wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 10:21 am I have no idea what all of that stuff is.
I think my best interpretation of what he's saying is that fsks can, according to their own criteria, be revised, either by new data or reevaluation according to the fsk.

It would be clearer if he said All astronomy conclusions are conditioned on the astronomy fsk. These would be considered true within that fsk, but it is possible that the set of conclusions and any particular one could be downgraded.

He calls them 'truths' not conclusions and I think that adds to the confusion.
If all truths are conditioned on an FSK, but FSKs change their minds, it seems like THEIR truths aren't self reverentially conditioned on their own fsk. Right? Like, truth in astronomy isn't "this is true according to astronomy", it's... perhaps something more abstract, perhaps something more concrete. "This is true according to our best measurements", and then they output that "truth" to the world and then people like VA can say"this is true according to astronomy".

So internally to an FSK, truths aren't conditioned on FSKs, they're conditioned on models and measurements and so on. Externally, you can condition them on the fsk.

If it was conditioned on itself internally, self reverentially, fsks would never have any means to change their mind. They only change their minds because their truths are referential to something else.

AND, of course, they can measure WRONG, presumably, so it's not even the full story to say that their truths are conditioned on their measurements. Their ideas of various truths are conditioned on their measurements, but there's still a deeper truth even than that - a deeper truth that allows us to say things like "perhaps they measured wrong".
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3710
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Is the Star, Proxima Centauri Real?

Post by Peter Holmes »

Just to say, we may risk, through inattention or boredom, thinking that the following makes sense.

'All facts are conditioned on a human-based framework and system of knowledge, and therefore cannot be independent of the human conditions.'

This drivel is false - and anyway does nothing to establish moral objectivity.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Is the Star, Proxima Centauri Real?

Post by Iwannaplato »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 12:08 pm

If all truths are conditioned on an FSK, but FSKs change their minds, it seems like THEIR truths aren't self reverentially conditioned on their own fsk. Right?
Until they are not. IOW the fsk would have models and conclusions and methodologies. There's no reason they throw a new better telescope up in orbit and astronomers, using the FSK realize that Star X is actually a binary star, but so far off, this was not noticed before. One can revise in an FSK.
So internally to an FSK, truths aren't conditioned on FSKs, they're conditioned on models and measurements and so on.
Well, models are a framework and measurements would be made according to the epistemology and previous conclusions of astronomy.
AND, of course, they can measure WRONG, presumably, so it's not even the full story to say that their truths are conditioned on their measurements. Their ideas of various truths are conditioned on their measurements, but there's still a deeper truth even than that - a deeper truth that allows us to say things like "perhaps they measured wrong".
I'm being as charitable as I can, but my take on fsks is that they are an approach to arriving at conclusions, including models that guide research and how things are measured. They are evolving, the various fsks, and more information comes in, so models change, new measurements come in, reevaluations of previous research.

To say conditioned on the fsk means that we arrived at the conclusion using the fsk: its approaches to measurement (if it's an fsk uses measurement), and working from models and the epistemology associated with that fsk in general. There's no reason I can see why that has to be infallible or permanent (the set of conclusions held to be true at this time).
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2561
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: Is the Star, Proxima Centauri Real?

Post by Flannel Jesus »

Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 12:14 pm To say conditioned on the fsk means that we arrived at the conclusion using the fsk.
Well sure, the truths rational people think they know usually come from FSKs. As a statement, that feels to me like a far way away from saying "THE truth is conditioned upon an FSK" or "all truths are conditioned upon FSKs".

If we accept that FSKs can be wrong, even the most scientific ones can sometimes be wrong, then we MUST have some idea of truth that runs deeper than the fsk, that is not "conditioned upon" the fsk.

"The astronomy fsk says this star is 5 billion years old, so I believe it's about 5 billion years old, but we could be wrong, maybe it's closer to 8 billion years old." <- this implies that my belief is derived via the fsk, but that the fsk is NOT the final arbiter of truth, and that therefore there are truths that are not "conditioned on" fsks.

So if fsks are not the final arbiter of truth, what is? A realist has a pretty normal looking answer: reality. If an FSK is wrong, it's wrong with respect to reality. That's true even if we don't know what the true answer is in reality. That's true even if that aspect of reality is even in principle inaccessible to humans. We can be wrong even if we could never possibly find out we are wrong, because reality is the bedrock of truth, not fsks. FSKs are the bedrock of our ACCESS to truth, perhaps, but not truth itself.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Is the Star, Proxima Centauri Real?

Post by Iwannaplato »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 12:27 pm Well sure, the truths rational people think they know usually come from FSKs. As a statement, that feels to me like a far way away from saying "THE truth is conditioned upon an FSK" or "all truths are conditioned upon FSKs".

If we accept that FSKs can be wrong, even the most scientific ones can sometimes be wrong, then we MUST have some idea of truth that runs deeper than the fsk, that is not "conditioned upon" the fsk.

"The astrology fsk says this star is 5 billion years old, so I believe it's about 5 billion years old, but we could be wrong, maybe it's closer to 8 billion years old." <- this implies that my belief is derived via the fsk, but that the fsk is NOT the final arbiter of truth, and that therefore there are truths that are not "conditioned on" fsks.
Can't we say that many fsks, including that one for astronomy, allow for revision?
My point earlier is that many fsks, and certainly astronomy, can revise, using it's own fsk, earlier conclusions. The new conclusions are conditioned on the same fsk. The methodology itself can lead to new conclusions (with more data, for example, or the confession of guilt of some astronomer over reseach cheating, etc.)

IOW one does not have to use something other than the FSK itself to change the conclusions.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Is the Star, Proxima Centauri Real?

Post by Skepdick »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 12:27 pm
Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 12:14 pm To say conditioned on the fsk means that we arrived at the conclusion using the fsk.
Well sure, the truths rational people think they know usually come from FSKs. As a statement, that feels to me like a far way away from saying "THE truth is conditioned upon an FSK" or "all truths are conditioned upon FSKs".

If we accept that FSKs can be wrong, even the most scientific ones can sometimes be wrong, then we MUST have some idea of truth that runs deeper than the fsk, that is not "conditioned upon" the fsk.

"The astronomy fsk says this star is 5 billion years old, so I believe it's about 5 billion years old, but we could be wrong, maybe it's closer to 8 billion years old." <- this implies that my belief is derived via the fsk, but that the fsk is NOT the final arbiter of truth, and that therefore there are truths that are not "conditioned on" fsks.

So if fsks are not the final arbiter of truth, what is? A realist has a pretty normal looking answer: reality. If an FSK is wrong, it's wrong with respect to reality. That's true even if we don't know what the true answer is in reality. That's true even if that aspect of reality is even in principle inaccessible to humans. We can be wrong even if we could never possibly find out we are wrong, because reality is the bedrock of truth, not fsks. FSKs are the bedrock of our ACCESS to truth, perhaps, but not truth itself.
It's like you don't understand how tautologies (e.g definitional truths) work.

What makes a definition "right" or "wrong"?

Flannel Jesus wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 12:27 pm So if fsks are not the final arbiter of truth, what is? A realist has a pretty normal looking answer: reality
In what way does reality determine that this color qualifies as "red" and not "blue"?

In what way does reality determine that the color-fsk is "right" or "wrong" with respect to the color spectrum?
Last edited by Skepdick on Fri Jun 02, 2023 12:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2561
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: Is the Star, Proxima Centauri Real?

Post by Flannel Jesus »

Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 12:35 pmlCan't we say that many fsks, including that one for astronomy, allow for revision?
Of course they do - IF their truths are not self reverentially "conditioned" upon themselves, but instead stand in relation to something that they want to revise themselves to more closely match/model/predict. This "something" seems to be a truth that is not conditioned upon an FSK, but instead a truth upon which FSKs want to condition themselves. This is what is normal folks call "reality".
Flannel Jesus
Posts: 2561
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2022 7:09 pm

Re: Is the Star, Proxima Centauri Real?

Post by Flannel Jesus »

Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 12:35 pm IOW one does not have to use something other than the FSK itself to change the conclusions.
I get what you're saying, but sometimes FSKs change in fundamental ways - "we were doing this wrong before, we need to change operationally to do it this way now" - and also, we all agree that some FSKs are bullshit.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Is the Star, Proxima Centauri Real?

Post by Skepdick »

Flannel Jesus wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 12:49 pm
Iwannaplato wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 12:35 pmlCan't we say that many fsks, including that one for astronomy, allow for revision?
Of course they do - IF their truths are not self reverentially "conditioned" upon themselves, but instead stand in relation to something that they want to revise themselves to more closely match/model/predict. This "something" seems to be a truth that is not conditioned upon an FSK, but instead a truth upon which FSKs want to condition themselves. This is what is normal folks call "reality".
You use of the terms "truth" and "reality" is effectively synonymous.

If normal people call it "reality" why do you call it "truth"?

Why are you pervaricating?
Post Reply