Scientific 'proof' is certainly not absolute. Strong evidence at best really. Science hasn't 'proven' evolution really because proof is absolute evidence.

But informally and colloquially proof can be less than absolute, it can be just evidence. Like in the legal system when you prove something "beyond reasonable doubt", it's not actually proof, just evidence, but in that context it's called proof.

In more formal contexts 'proof' is absolute and science doesn't call its evidence proof. But a standard dictionary definition just means evidence:

Dictionary.com's definition of 'proof Wrote:evidence or argument establishing a fact or the truth of a statement.

So indeed, science and scientists wouldn't call it 'proof' and 'scientific proof' is called evidence, really. But when us non-scientists speak of 'proof' we often just mean evidence anyway.

"Evidence" is indeed a better word though, because "proof" has at very least a connotation of being absolute more than "evidence" does. Even if, as you can see, the dictionary definition suggests they're identical in meaning.

The dictionary only deals with denotation, not connotation, that's the thing. And I personally consider connotations part of the definition. Which is why I consider the concept of 'equality' being more than simply 'equalness', because the connotation involves just equalness. Not just equallness.

(July 4, 2016 at 7:01 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(July 4, 2016 at 1:50 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: If you don't have any choice about what you think then your thoughts could be anything at all for no reason in particular.

A computer has no choice, but its behavior is perfectly logical.  You're conflating determined reason with epiphenomenalism.  That doesn't make any sense why you would think that one would imply the other.

Jor, you know better than to compare a computer which has been designed to perform logical operations and brains which evolved as a means to survival. Mental events that yield reproductive advantages to the species do not necessarily correspond to things as they are. From a skeptical point of view, it has not been shown that mental processes can reveal things-as-they-are. Also from a skeptical point of view, it hasn't been shown that things-as-they-are even conform to reason.

Alistar Ham insists that in a deterministic universe people still make choices. Someone has a choice only when he or she could do otherwise. Rationality is about weighing options and picking the one that seems better. In a deterministic universe, no one can do anything other than what he will do pick other that what he would pick. That's not really a choice.

(July 4, 2016 at 7:45 pm)Whateverist the White Wrote: Super late to the party but beginning any sentence with "hypothetically, science proves .." seems wrong headed.  All that can even mean is science has tested a hypothesis and the best that can be determined by the means that have been conceived of with the materials available  is ____ .  So "prove" here just means tested, right?  Shouldn't mix up logic/math terminology with empirical matters.  Now I'm late to a July 4th party!  (I'll come back ready to eat crow later.)

Maybe.  But I don't think it matters in the context of this informal discussion.

(July 5, 2016 at 9:31 am)ChadWooters Wrote:

(July 4, 2016 at 7:01 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: A computer has no choice, but its behavior is perfectly logical.  You're conflating determined reason with epiphenomenalism.  That doesn't make any sense why you would think that one would imply the other.

Jor, you know better than to compare a computer which has been designed to perform logical operations and brains which evolved as a means to survival. Mental events that yield reproductive advantages to the species do not necessarily correspond to things as they are. From a skeptical point of view, it has not been shown that mental processes can reveal things-as-they-are. Also from a skeptical point of view, it hasn't been shown that things-as-they-are even conform to reason.

Alistar Ham insists that in a deterministic universe people still make choices. Someone has a choice only when he or she could do otherwise. Rationality is about weighing options and picking the one that seems better. In a deterministic universe, no one can do anything other than what he will do pick other that what he would pick. That's not really a choice.

Would you settle for the illusion of rationality?

Personally I don't think it's possible to demonstrate that there either is or isn't any kind of alternatives at any given point. Not when we're stuck in the middle of what is effectively one data point.

We would need to be "outside", with several identical versions of our reality, so we could actually test things. From our point of view that is probably forever impossible, but even if we do get outside, we have the same problem regarding wherever the hell else we are after that.

(July 5, 2016 at 9:31 am)ChadWooters Wrote: Alistar Ham insists that in a deterministic universe people still make choices. Someone has a choice only when he or she could do otherwise.

You can insist that if determinism is true our decisions "aren't true decisions" all you want but it doesn't deny the reality of decisions.

If I hadn't decided to type up this post it wouldn't have typed up itself. That is still the case regardless of whether I was determined to decide to type it up or not.

Again, you are conflating fatalism and determinism. Determinism says our decisions are part of the causal change. Fatalism says we "have no choice so we might as well not bother. Why get out of bed in the morning?" but it ignores the fact our decisions are part of the causal chain, rather than being nonexistent.

Determinism means our decisions are fully determined and not free, it doesn't mean they don't exist.

(July 4, 2016 at 12:02 am)Alasdair Ham Wrote: Wikipedia The illusion of free will is itself an illusion"

Then I'm an illusionist.

(July 5, 2016 at 9:31 am)ChadWooters Wrote:

(July 4, 2016 at 7:01 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: A computer has no choice, but its behavior is perfectly logical.  You're conflating determined reason with epiphenomenalism.  That doesn't make any sense why you would think that one would imply the other.

Jor, you know better than to compare a computer which has been designed to perform logical operations and brains which evolved as a means to survival.

Do you know the limits of what evolution can create? In order to find and prepare food, it's necessary that our internal model of the world in some way correspond to what's out there, or else we wouldn't survive. There's reason to suspect that our perceptions are veridical. What makes you think evolution didn't design us to be capable of reason? (By the way, our brains aren't programmed for survival, they're programmed to help us reproduce. The link between evolved behaviors and the selective pressures which drove them is seldom obvious, what makes you think the advantage of reason would be any different?)

(July 5, 2016 at 9:31 am)ChadWooters Wrote: Mental events that yield reproductive advantages to the species do not necessarily correspond to things as they are.

And they don't necessarily not correspond to the way things are. The proof is in the pudding. In some ways the mind and perception can accurately model reality, in other ways, our biases, it does not.

(July 5, 2016 at 9:31 am)ChadWooters Wrote: From a skeptical point of view, it has not been shown that mental processes can reveal things-as-they-are. Also from a skeptical point of view, it hasn't been shown that things-as-they-are even conform to reason.

What on earth would revealing things-as-they-are amount to? Our brains make models based on assumptions about the input. A dark area next to a light area is perceived as an edge. A monochromatic patch appears as a surface. We test whether these assumptions are valid by interacting with the things in our model. What are you suggesting has not been shown to conform to reason? It's possible that as I'm typing this, I'm in reality preparing a fruit salad, and that what I think is a logical response is nothing but a bunch of verbal strokes of the other, a sort of intellectual grooming behavior. But so what? As long as it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, what does it really matter? Ultimately our behavior is non-rational; it does not conform to logic. Reason is but a small part of the self. You seem to think this 'not conforming to things-as-they-are' is some sort of horrific bugbear. It's not.

Moreover, if we play on the other side of the fence, postulating that a perfectly rational superbeing imbued us and the universe with intelligibility doesn't get around the skeptical objections either. Ultimately there's no justifiable reason for suspecting that an ultimate being isn't deceiving us about things-as-they-are. It's no less an arbitrary assumption than is supposing that reason which comports with things-as-they-are has some sort of evolutionary value.

(July 5, 2016 at 9:31 am)ChadWooters Wrote: Alistar Ham insists that in a deterministic universe people still make choices. Someone has a choice only when he or she could do otherwise. Rationality is about weighing options and picking the one that seems better. In a deterministic universe, no one can do anything other than what he will do pick other that what he would pick. That's not really a choice.

Choice is the act of realizing one alternative out of multiple alternatives. It's true that if free will is an illusion then choice as well is not what it appears. What's your point? Prior to realization of that one alternative, it would appear that different possible worlds corresponding to the actual world with ever so slight differences exist. That is all choice is acknowledging, that the various possible worlds that could result lie close to one another in terms of their epistemic space prior to the choice. That's all it implies. The difference between chocolate and vanilla when I'm standing at the counter requires small changes; the difference between chocolate and a blue whale lie miles apart from our position inside an array of possible worlds. As long as we are clear about what we mean, what's the problem?

(July 3, 2016 at 2:09 pm)wallym Wrote: For religious folks, would you pack it in?  If they, in the future, could map out 'decision making', and show it's got nothing to do with 'choosing', that pretty much is game over for the foundation of all major religions, right?

Would you consider this to be proof that your God doesn't exist?

In other words: If science can prove that we can't make choices...would you make a different choice?   

Exactly. Because choices still exist either way the question is whether the choices are free. Exactly.