Avoidance of self- & other-deception in proofs

[cheesehead]

I plan to next address:

Originally Posted by Zeta-Flux

I'm not sure I understand the context of your question. Can you rephrase it if I don't answer it below?

... but will be delayed a while.

[xilman]

Originally Posted by retina

T Rather than concentrate on QM/GR and say there are two competing sciences, it is better to say that they are merely problems in the details which will eventually get sorted out.

As you wish.

In that vein, I claim that Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Mormonism, and a whole slew of other belief systems are not really competing religions, merely problems in the details which will eventually get sorted out.

Worship of Zeus went the same way as the phlogiston theory. I see no reason in principle why a Grand Unified Religion of Everything shouldn't be able to unify the creeds.


Paul

[retina]

Originally Posted by xilman

In that vein, I claim that Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Mormonism, and a whole slew of other belief systems are not really competing religions, merely problems in the details which will eventually get sorted out.

I assume that is tongue in cheek? Since most (all?) religions do not have any interest in changing their idea of the "truth".

I think Mr. P-1's thought of likening science to a religion is not a good idea. This merely muddies the issue. Religions are clearly heavily structured towards the followers having unchanging beliefs. Followers of religions are encouraged to resist changes. Whereas science is the opposite, it is structured towards seeking and embracing change.

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by retina

Whereas science is the opposite, it is structured towards seeking and embracing change.

... or, rather, making it more feasible, for those of its followers who struggle with their own individual resistances to change, to seek and embrace change.

It's the process that contains, within it, means of avoiding self-deception, not an idealization or change in basic nature of those humans following the process.

OTOH, with the comparatively recent introduction of psychology as a science, it has become feasible for individuals to learn more about their basic human natures than ever before in history, and thus to be able to more effectively attempt to modify, or at least to compensate for, certain strands of that human nature.

- - -

Originally Posted by xilman

In that vein, I claim that Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Mormonism, and a whole slew of other belief systems are not really competing religions, merely problems in the details which will eventually get sorted out.

I disagree. There are inherent limitations on such an ability, in those belief systems that conflict with reality.

Worship of Zeus went the same way as the phlogiston theory.

Because it (worship of Zeus) was scientifically demonstrated to be false? I wasn't aware of that! I thought it was mainly a matter of conversion or conquest by other religions, or of overrunning Zeus adherents' culture.

(Or am I ignorant of phlogiston's real history?!?)

- - -

Originally Posted by xilman

Quantum mechanics (QM) appears to make predictions in distinct contradiction to the physics in which Einstein believed and in which he'd made great advances. So far, QM seems to be more in accordance with experiment.

... perhaps because it's been more feasible to conduct experiments at the scales where QM predominates than at the scales where GR does? Or maybe we're just more impressed with QM's experimental successes because they seem more contradictory ("spooky") with our everyday experience than GR?

As I see it, QM and GR both appear to be approximations which are predominant at opposite ends of the scale spectrum. Newtonian mechanics was a good approximation at moderate scales (those scales at which evolution equipped us to handle through our unassisted perceptions); its failures/discrepancies became apparent only as we expanded our ability to conduct experiments at more and more extreme scales.

However, general relativity (GR) is also a beautiful theory which shows excellent agreement with experimental and observational results.

Unfortunately, GW[sic] and QM are mutually incompatible. In their present form, at most one of them can be correct.

I think a more-correct statement will turn out to be that each of the GR/QM approximations are demonstrably inadequate at the others end of the scale spectrum, so a successor Theory of Everything will turn out to have GR as an asymptote at the upper end, and QM as an asymptote at the lower end.

Edit: Oops! ... I overlooked that Mr. P-1 had already said that in #42.

Originally Posted by Mr. P-1

At the risk of opining beyond my qualifications, aren't both theories falsified? GR by observations which reveal quantum effects, and QM by observations which reveal relativistic effects?

What I understand physists to be searching for is a theory of quantum gravity, which reduces to GR in the domain where relativistic effects dominate and QM where quantum effects dominate, and thus explains those observations consistent with either and both?

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by retina

Do you believe that the GR/QM problem is because of self-deception? I had always assumed it was because of a fundamental difficulty with the human mind in understanding the underlying mechanism. I kind of liken it to waiting for a dog to discover arithmetic. The dog is unable to understand the basic principles.

Well, they (and several other species) can count:

Newborn chicks (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sciencean...-suggests.html ); fish, parrots, raccoons, ferrets, and lions (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/ear...no-higher.html ); monkeys (http://www.newscientist.com/article/...&nsref=dn14231 ); ants (http://www.livescience.com/animals/0...edometers.html ) (I remember singing about them: http://kids.niehs.nih.gov/lyrics/antsgo.htm ); bees, birds and rats (http://www.animalbehavioronline.com/counting.html ).

But counting isn't arithmetic. (I don't know if the fish who count to four can put two and two together, but maybe the female lions can.)

Even the wave/particle duality thing is not something I am entirely happy about. This seems like some type of self-deception is happening. If we try to find a wave then we find a wave. If we try to find a particle then we find a particle. Are our experiments wrongly constructed? Is the theory just backward and we don't know how to fix it? Are we just not yet able to construct the concept to adequately explain it?

I used to entertain such doubts, too.

Is the theory correct and I have merely deceived myself to think there is a problem with duality?

Experiments keep showing that QM is correct even when contrary to our everyday expectations. Apparently, the theory is correct! But I wouldn't call our initial disbelief self-deception -- not mainly anyway. Rather, it's a matter of QM's being so close to our innate sense of physics at everyday scales, and showing its differences only with very special demonstrations, so that there are no noticeable differences that we're ignoring in everyday life.

[retina]

Ways to avoid self-deception:

1. Keep reminding yourself that the plural of anecdote is not data.
2. Make you own opinions and ideas based upon solid data.
3. Think for yourself about things before accepting conclusions given to you by others.
4. Always try to find proof that contradicts your current theories, and incorporate it into new theories.
5. Question old ideas based upon poor understanding and past cultural biases.
6. Read widely and be prepared to accept new knowledge and understanding.
7. Look for novel ways of describing things, new points of view can shed light on previously unseen ideas.
8. Latest is greatest, we know more now than we have ever known before.
9. Keep an open mind towards all points of view.

Ways to encourage self-deception:

1. Always believe what your friends and family tell you, because they mean well.
2. Never question the opinion of authority figures, because they are smarter than you.
3. Just go along with the crowd, since it is not possible for so many people to all be wrong.
4. Always try to find proof that supports what your sacred book says, and ignore anything that might show an error.
5. Say to yourself that your current beliefs can't possibly be wrong because they have been handed down for many generations.
6. Believe everything that is written in only your sacred book, and reject all other knowledge that does not align with your sacred book.
7. Use mantras, chants, songs, doctrines and rote learning to reinforce your current beliefs.
8. Old is gold, those past civilisations knew more than we know now.
9. Keep a open mind for only one point of view.

[xilman]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

Because it (worship of Zeus) was scientifically demonstrated to be false? I wasn't aware of that! I thought it was mainly a matter of conversion or conquest by other religions, or of overrunning Zeus adherents' culture.

Because worship of Zeus was religiously demonstrated to be false.
Phlogiston was supplanted as a scientific theory; worship of Zeus was supplanted as a religious activity.

Numerous other scientific theories have been supplanted by their adherents being converted to the latest theory, or by their adherents dying out. Some beliefs die long and slow deaths. There are still those who believe that God does not throw dice. They may very well be correct. There are still those who believe that gravitational collapse does not occur; they may very well be correct too.


Paul

[Nelson]

I think the real question is not whether a given theory is the end of truth in itself but whether a message is true or false. The other side of the coin is whether it matters or not as pointed out by someone's mention of having socks in his drawer or not. Not everyone uses drawers by the way. (some wear jockies others use boxer still others use none of the above)

http://www.boundless.org/features/a0000911.html

The discussion in the above link centers around whether a message corresponds to reality. Reality is a very high barrier to everything which claims to be truth and is not limited to questions of religion nor specifically a christian issue. Who the messenger is however must be included in an evaluation of whether a statement is true or not. So for God to play checkers or throw dice is moot since he could influence the outcome directly. If he claims to rise from the dead it could be worth considering. However if I calimed that I would rise from the dead in three days it wouldn't take long to verify that I was lying or a fool, assuming that you outlived me. Even if you didn't outlive me others would still be around to verify the veracity of the statement and if you were putting your hope in me you would be pretty much the bigger fool. Which is what Abraham did concerning the Messiah. His hope however was not foolish as later events attest. Even if those events had not yet taken place the correspondence to reality would still be real because of the "who" he placed his hope in.

The question of whether one has stopped beating his wife doesn't really apply because it doesn't define the context and is not a loaded question but rather an unloaded one. I use third person here not having nor having had a wife. If a guy beats his wife at checkers every week the answer would still be, "no", but doesn't mean he is an abusive husband. She might beat him at Scrabble just as often, does that mean she is an abusive wife? Why do we call a man who beats his wife a wife beater? The true answer is because he beats his wife so he doesn't beat his wife because he's a "wife beater" because it doesn't correspond to reality to say that, "he beats his wife because he is a "wife beater"."

Wrap your mind around what the word husband (caretaker) means in full context then abusive is assumed not to exist. That doesn't correspond to reality though does it? It is known that there are men that abuse their wives and whether in religious or nonreligious circles the proportions are about the same if the group's leaders don't take specific measures to limit or correct that behaviour. A true message will not deny that behaviour but does have a solution that does correspond to reality and makes such change both reasonable and possible. A false message may claim to have a solution by dealing with the syptoms and bringing about divorce or some similar result but has done nothing to change the person demonstrating that type of behaviour and time and again the tragic results are all around us.

Denying that a certain condition is reality doesn't change reality in any way but is what you always bump up against when your assumptions are false. As for God he may not play dice but he still takes big chances with a species called humanity which often behaves in rather inhumane ways to its own kind.

nelson

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by Nelson

I think the real question is not whether a given theory is the end of truth in itself but whether a message is true or false.

Do you have anything to say about ways to avoid self-deception when determining whether something is true or not?

http://www.boundless.org/features/a0000911.html

The discussion in the above link centers around whether a message corresponds to reality.

But it never even mentions deception. Following Moreland's guidelines seems to be equally applicable to a self-deceiving person as to a non-self-deceiving person, with no means of distinguishing between the two.

Reality is a very high barrier to everything which claims to be truth and is not limited to questions of religion nor specifically a christian issue.

Yes, but there's no mention in Moreland's article of how someone seeking truth or reality can avoid self-deception (or other-deception, for that matter), other than a vague warning about false prophets and bearing false testimony without specific criteria for categorizing such.

Who the messenger is however must be included in an evaluation of whether a statement is true or not.

That illustrates, again, religion's excessive dependence on personal relationship or authority as a guideline to truth.

Even if those events had not yet taken place the correspondence to reality would still be real because of the "who" he placed his hope in.

No, it wouldn't. Again, the dependence on authority doesn't guarantee truth -- it just guarantees, or at least encourages, compliance with what people with authority declare to be true.

Denying that a certain condition is reality doesn't change reality in any way but is what you always bump up against when your assumptions are false.

... such as the assumption, or assertion without proof, that God has any existence other than as an idea in human minds.

Over and over, people pray to God for some specific event to happen, or predict that God will do something at a certain time (e.g., apocalyptic predictions for the year 2000), and it doesn't happen. Sure, there is the occasional coincidence (some prayed-for ill people do recover) ... but never a cause-and-effect proof (as shown by the many equally ill people who are _not_ prayed-for but also recover, and there's no statistical difference versus the prayed-for group).

[retina]

Wikipedia has a nice list of cognitive biases. There are certainly a lot of ways that we humans can deceive ourselves. So perhaps that is why methods to avoid self-deception are so involved and complicated.

The page on confirmation bias is especially telling.

Originally Posted by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

Among the first to investigate this phenomenon was Peter Cathcart Wason (1960), whose 2-4-6 problem presented subjects with three numbers (a triple):

2:4:6

Subjects were told that the triple conforms to a particular rule. They were then asked to discover the rule by generating their own triples and using the feedback they received from the experimenter. Every time the subject generated a triple, the experimenter would indicate whether the triple conformed to the rule. The subjects were told that once they were sure of the correctness of their hypothesized rule, they should announce the rule.

While the actual rule was simply “any ascending sequence”, the subjects seemed to have a great deal of difficulty in inducing it, often announcing rules that were far more complex than the correct rule. The subjects seemed to test only “positive” examples—triples the subjects believed would conform to their rule and confirm their hypothesis. What they did not do was attempt to challenge or falsify their hypotheses by testing triples that they believed would not conform to their rule. (e.g. Subjects would test "4,6,8" and "11,13,15" but not "4,7,8" or "9,15,19" if they thought the rule was each number is two greater than its predecessor.) Wason referred to this phenomenon as confirmation bias, whereby subjects systematically seek only evidence that confirms their hypotheses, an explanation he made appeal to also for performance on his selection task (Wason 1968), though he did briefly consider that participants might be using a three-valued rather than two-valued logic. Confirmation bias has been used to explain why people believe in the paranormal.

Also see the Tolstoy syndrome.

[only_human]

Originally Posted by retina

Wikipedia has a nice list of cognitive biases. There are certainly a lot of ways that we humans can deceive ourselves. So perhaps that is why methods to avoid self-deception are so involved and complicated.

The page on confirmation bias is especially telling.Also see the Tolstoy syndrome.

The scientific method does not get enough respect for great tool that it is and the vigilance needed to apply it conscientiously. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

The essential elements of a scientific method are iterations, recursions, interleavings, and orderings of the following:

• Characterizations (observations, definitions, and measurements of the subject of inquiry)
• Hypotheses (theoretical, hypothetical explanations of observations and measurements of the subject)
• Predictions (reasoning including logical deduction from the hypothesis or theory)
• Experiments (tests of all of the above)

Each element of a scientific method is subject to peer review for possible mistakes.

Detractors seize on the fact that the steps are constantly subject to testing and disqualification as a weakness rather than the very powerful and necessary process of deception-avoidance; e.g. "But it's just a theory"