Path: eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: The Natural Philosopher Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc Subject: Re: The Joy of *small* business Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2024 08:46:37 +0000 Organization: A little, after lunch Lines: 93 Message-ID: References: <1248675b-e38a-04a7-93b3-6fa527725858@example.net> <1b67871a-8311-06f1-8738-c1d7068575f1@example.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2024 09:46:46 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="46e33f5fe7209cdeda83749f62943ed5"; logging-data="1192061"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+uvD1mY7JptvuwJKP0I+1gixfHZpJfhXg=" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:gf2xKS1qw/s2zD60Eo2yNHNE0kI= Content-Language: en-GB In-Reply-To: <1b67871a-8311-06f1-8738-c1d7068575f1@example.net> On 22/12/2024 21:54, D wrote: > > > On Sun, 22 Dec 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > >> On 22/12/2024 11:28, D wrote: >>>> The only difference is the latter big bang has a sentient >>>> intelligence with a Plan in charge. >>>> >>>> Really we only reject it on the slender basis of Occam - it's simply >>>> more complicated than necessary to explain this shit. >>> >>> I'd add to that that one is a process and open to change (which has >>> happened and does happen occasionally) and the other a religion. >>> >> I wasn't talking about the *practice* of science, or of religion for >> that matter. I was talking about their metaphysical *beliefs*. > > Ahh... our definitions differ when it comes to science. I was tricked! > But I will drop this line as I think it leads us back to old threads. ;) > >>> I have mixed feelings about Occam, since Occam tends to shut down >>> waaaay too many discussions waaay too quickly. Who is to say what is, >>> in reality "simpler" or less complex, if the understanding of the >>> questions is lacking? >> >> Precisely, In many ways the God explanation is simpler : >> >> "God did it all,  and faked it so it looks like he was never there at >> all, to test you fuckers" >> >> ...there are only three people who understand quantum physics and two >> of them are liars.... > > This is the truth and exactly one of the things I do not like with > Occam. If you're on team God (TM) that's the easiest explanation, if > you're on team Science (C), that's nonsense, and your version is the > simplest. > > There's no way to decide from a neutral point, if you are dealing with > religious people regardless of if they are from the religion religion, > or the religion science (which has very little to do with the science as > a process). > >> But if you examine Occam from outside the confines of realism and >> materialism, he makes perfect sense. >> >> 1. The problem of induction means that no inference  can ever be >> proved to be correct. >> 2. So given that its all bullshit anyway, why not pick the simplest >> bullshit that fits the facts? >> 3.  ...And fits within the accepted already established bullshit, that >> works... > > Ah, but the problem of induction is a chimera, an illusion. Popper > argued that justification is not needed at all, and seeking > justification "begs for an authoritarian answer". > > The only thing we need to worry about is if it works, and that's it. > Yes, but Realist/materialists reject stuff that works on the basis that its 'not real'... >> That is today's problem., People are absolutely reluctant to abandon >> the established bullshit, that works. > > This is not a problem, this is the way. If it works, is in fact the only > way. If that is abandoned, everything else is meaningless. That is the > strength of materialism and a common, shared external world, and one of > the best arguments for it. It is an argument for a shared external world, but not for its materiality > > We've been down this path many times before I think. > >> Even when they know it is actually wrong. >> >> The Kuhnian paradigm shift  is staring them in the face, but they >> simply cant accept it. >> >> >> >> -- “Ideas are inherently conservative. They yield not to the attack of other ideas but to the massive onslaught of circumstance" - John K Galbraith