Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
Full Silos of Iowa
|
|
|
Oct 30, 2010 - 12:32pm PT
|
"Hume himself, the greatest of the empiricists..."
Well, philosopher Christians like everybody else are entitled to their opinion. But as far as I'm concerned, the Engineer is the greatest of the empiricists.
(ref: e.g., Watt, Edison, DaVinci, Wright Bros.)
.....
(1) Engineering elucidates, philosophy (as practiced traditionally) obfuscates.
(2) Engineering: (a) proof that causality rules supreme; (b) proof that how the world works is intelligible; (c) proof that knowing better means doing better.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Oct 30, 2010 - 12:36pm PT
|
Certainly any authority that science claims is because of empirical verification, that is why it works so well and also why it has limitations in answering questions important to people's everyday experiences.
But it is not entirely empirical, because its predictive capability through mathematical theory is an important component of the scientific method. Theory produces hypothesis, which are then empirically tested. Failing that test, the theory is shown to be wrong. Passing the test conveys only consistency, not proof.
However, without theory you do not have science...
...interestingly, as I read madbolter1's tract above, I am struck by how hard he works at applying his logic to a situation which he states cannot be logically determined... how ironic.
The difference between the philosopher's approach to this and the physicist's approach is that the physicist will go out and explore the universe knowing what ideas will not work (because of the empirical test). The philosopher will have an opinion of what will or won't be true, but ultimately waits for the physicist to report back what actually is...
as for your (madbolter1) understanding of mathematical logic, I think you have overstated your case, perhaps because you haven't studied it extensively... on a rigorous level.
|
|
Crodog
Social climber
|
|
|
Oct 30, 2010 - 01:19pm PT
|
Prosecutors doubt Vatican money-laundering pledges
Sat Oct 30, 7:21 am ET
VATICAN CITY – The Vatican bank has taken steps to satisfy tough EU and international norms on money laundering and terror financing after being confronted with an unprecedented crackdown by Italian prosecutors, The Associated Press has learned.
In recent weeks the bank has made written and in-person pledges to pass anti-money laundering legislation, report and investigate suspicious transactions, identify customers to law enforcement and create a special compliance authority.
Prosecutors, though, aren't buying any of it. They claim that even as the bank was making such overtures, it broke the law by trying to transfer money without identifying the sender or recipient, or what the money was being used for.
Italian prosecutors have placed bank chairman Ettore Gotti Tedeschi and his deputy Paolo Cipriani under investigation and financial police seized euro23 million (US$30 million) from a Vatican bank account on Sept. 21.
The Vatican has reacted furiously, insisting that the omission of data was just a "misunderstanding" that could be easily clarified. It tried to get the seizure lifted, but the court refused.
Now the Vatican has finally given its commitments to some of the key institutions involved in the fight against money laundering, officials at the institutions told the AP.
Vatican bank officials in recent weeks made a written commitment to the Financial Action Task Force — the Paris-based policymaking body that develops anti-money laundering and anti-terror financing legislation — to do whatever is necessary to come into compliance with its norms, a senior FATF official familiar with the negotiations told The Associated Press on Friday.
The FATF requires the Vatican to pass legislation making money-laundering a crime; to establish an entity to report suspicious transactions and then investigate them; and to pass legislation requiring that the bank identify its customers properly and make that information available to law enforcement agencies, the official said.
Separately, on Oct. 15, Vatican bank officials met with European Commission officials and agreed that Pope Benedict XVI would act to bring into Vatican law EU directives on money laundering that are required of euro-zone countries, said Amadeu Altafaj i Tardio, spokesman for European Commissioner for Economic and Monetary Affairs Olli Rehn.
The bank, formally known as the Institute for Religious Works, also pledged to establish a compliance "authority" headed by a senior Vatican cardinal on Jan. 1 to implement the anti-money laundering legislation, he said. The authority will be the contact for all EU and international agencies working to fight money-laundering.
Vatican bank officials also had two meetings starting in the spring of this year with officials from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development to learn how to get on the "white list," of countries that share tax information to crack down on tax havens, said Jeffrey Owens, head of tax issues at the OECD.
To join the OECD's club, the Vatican must first make a formal commitment to transparency and exchange of financial information and then take part in peer review sessions. To get on the "white list" the Vatican must enter into tax information sharing agreements with at least 12 other countries — a process that can often take years.
"The next stage is: They know what the standards are. Do they want to advance the dialogue with the aim of committing to the standards?" Owens said.
Despite such efforts — which predate the seizure of the Vatican account — prosecutors have said the Vatican has done nothing concrete to comply with Italian law, to which it is subject, much less international norms to fight money laundering. In an October court document, prosecutors said such compliance "doesn't even seem possible" given the lack of internal norms at the Vatican.
Citing an Oct. 6, 2010, Bank of Italy memorandum, prosecutors said the Vatican bank's consultations had been "completely fruitless," according to Corriere della Sera.
Gotti Tedeschi has insisted his efforts are sincere and has said he is mortified by the scandal. He has continued speaking publicly about the need for ethics in finance and has continued his promotion of the pope's encyclical on the global financial crisis.
At the same time, the bank is gearing up for another possible assault by Holocaust survivors who claim that Nazi loot was stored at the Vatican. A U.S. federal appeals court threw their case out in March after determining the Vatican bank enjoyed immunity since the Holy See is a foreign sovereign.
Attorney Jonathan Levy has since taken his case to the European Commission, asking for an investigation into whether looted Nazi gold had been used in Vatican euros and commemorative coins.
"The issue here is that it's the EU's problem because they entered into an agreement with the Vatican to mint euros," Levy said. "From our point of view, it's the EU's responsibility to hold the Vatican responsible to meet money laundering standards."
|
|
ydpl8s
Trad climber
Santa Monica, California
|
|
|
Oct 30, 2010 - 01:36pm PT
|
I think another Bertrand Russell quote about sums it up for me (my favorite, I have it taped to my monitor)
The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.
Bertrand Russell
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Oct 30, 2010 - 03:06pm PT
|
...interestingly, as I read madbolter1's tract above, I am struck by how hard he works at applying his logic to a situation which he states cannot be logically determined... how ironic.
No irony here, Ed. Because I deny that empiricism rules, it is entirely consistent for me to argue logically to demonstrate the limitations of thoroughgoing empiricism. The line of argumentation I employ is, IRONICALLY, presumed by empiricists but not available to them, which was the POINT of my arguments. Sorry you missed the point.
as for your (madbolter1) understanding of mathematical logic, I think you have overstated your case, perhaps because you haven't studied it extensively... on a rigorous level.
Actually, Ed, I have a Ph.D. in analytical philosophy, from UC Santa Barbara. Analytical philosophy is a VERY different thing from what HFCS always indicts: "Let's read some Plato and discuss." Analytical philosophy is grounding in logic, and I have actually been "rigorously" trained in mathematical logic. In fact, I scored the second highest score EVER in the advanced logic course at UCSB. I missed 1 point out of the course's 1000 points, taught by Nathan Salmon (look him up if you wish), heir apparent to Alonzo Church (look HIM up if you wish). In short, I venture to guess that I am FAR more "rigorously" trained in what I'm talking about than 99.9999999% of people on this planet. I am arguing incredibly superficially compared to what I'm capable of, attempting to make the points as accessible as possible to those that lack the background in this level of logical analysis.
And so far, nobody has been willing to TOUCH my overarching points:
1) Hawking is babbling absurdities.
2) Science is entirely incapable of answering the fundamental questions.
3) There is necessarily more to reality than empiricism can account for.
Nothing I am saying is intended to denigrate the legitimate practice of science. Nobody, including me, denies that science produces wonderful things. As an engineering enterprise, it is peerless. But what I decry is when science tries to become (badly) philosophical; and in THAT realm I know what I'm talking about.
And denigrating philosophers broadcast gets you nowhere. MOST of what we are discussing cannot be decided empirically/scientifically. MOST of the issues are philosophical rather than scientific. Furthermore, contemporary science lives and breathes Karl Popper's falsificationism! Scientists did not recognize the principles of what they do. They touted verificationism prior to Popper. Now, ALL scientists recognize that falsificationism is a superior model to verificationism as an accurate description of what science is and does. But, I repeat, they got that from a philosopher of science, not from the practice of science and not from the thinking of any scientist. So, caution yourself about throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
HFCS, your ignorance never ceases to amaze me. As I said before, I have found you unworthy of engagement.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Oct 30, 2010 - 03:17pm PT
|
madbolter1 - certainly you can posit that things exist beyond the reach of empiricism, but you haven't provided an example. Mathematics is not an example simply because you have not shown it does not arise from the universe.
You have stated things which are left unproven: logical necessity, certainty and universality are all presumptions on your part, stated as fact without proof. It is certainly one possible explanation, but the only one, and certainly not the best one.
I am interested in where this stuff comes from, and I will continue to think about it, but I am undeterred by your rather conventional approach to what you learned in school. What you also learned are the limits to logical systems, which have a whole set of problems around undecidability...
...so mathematics may be an approximation after all, or of limited range.
But you are seeking absolutes. There is nothing that suggests that mathematics must be absolute and/or that it "lives" beyond the empirical realm.
Unless you have a proof of that... if so, let's see it!
|
|
ydpl8s
Trad climber
Santa Monica, California
|
|
|
Oct 30, 2010 - 03:48pm PT
|
In fact, I scored the second highest score EVER in the advanced logic course at UCSB. I missed 1 point out of the course's 1000 points, taught by Nathan Salmon (look him up if you wish), heir apparent to Alonzo Church (look HIM up if you wish). In short, I venture to guess that I am FAR more "rigorously" trained in what I'm talking about than 99.9999999% of people on this planet. I am arguing incredibly superficially compared to what I'm capable of, attempting to make the points as accessible as possible to those that lack the background in this level of logical analysis.
Ugh! I'm feeling some self righteous, I'm better than you, entitlement, approaching megalomania here. Didn't you learn in all of your logic courses that pedantic posturing is not the way to win an argument or to get someone to see your side?
If you had anything logical and reasonable to say, you just lost my attention.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Oct 30, 2010 - 04:15pm PT
|
Pretty interesting thread now that Madbolter1 has entered into the fray.
Keep going on this please.
It's 1000 times better than this stupid "Rubber chicken appreciation Thread" type stuff .....
|
|
Crodog
Social climber
|
|
|
Oct 30, 2010 - 04:47pm PT
|
I think all Hawking was saying was that something can come from nothing so you don't need a God to do it.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Oct 30, 2010 - 04:52pm PT
|
Nothing is still something.
Only a complete fool would think otherwise.
|
|
Jingy
climber
Somewhere out there
|
|
|
Oct 30, 2010 - 05:14pm PT
|
in my best latin;
Obsconday obeseri illegitimo
Roughly translated;
Get outta here you fat bastard
"something can come from nothing" - only if you have enough of it, and all at once.
|
|
Tony Bird
climber
Northridge, CA
|
|
|
Oct 30, 2010 - 05:43pm PT
|
bertie russell--now there was a feller you could trust.
i have the uneasy feeling that if i would read all those long posts by madbolter i'd start to get to the heart of this debate, which has spanned several threads over the past few months. oh, well, we'll see.
i have a book at home--i've had a hard time getting into it. it's called the book of nothing by cambridge mathematician john barrow. the fascinating thing about this book is the centerfold (sorry--maybe not the kind of centerfold you have in mind):
this is a map of the field of mathematics. (if you click on it, you'll probably get better resolution.) barrow notes that most mathematicians in any given area have trouble doing a dialog with mathematicians in the area next door, much less across the way.
gordon kane, a university of michigan physicist and fermilab habitué, notes that very often, in the field of physics, a development from the field of mathematics becomes remarkably applicable to some problem which physicists are working on about five years after it's developed by the mathematicians.
now you tell me, ed hartouni, how a layperson is supposed to follow this "open" field of knowledge without an intensely narrow education.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
|
Oct 30, 2010 - 05:47pm PT
|
yer all gonna die!!!
will you seek God or some alien in death?????
Have fun! fools.......
|
|
Crodog
Social climber
|
|
|
Oct 30, 2010 - 08:40pm PT
|
Don't think I will be doing a lot of seeking after cremation.
|
|
Port
Trad climber
San Diego
|
|
|
Oct 30, 2010 - 08:46pm PT
|
will you seek God or some alien in death?????
The two are equally stupid
|
|
Jingy
climber
Somewhere out there
|
|
|
Oct 30, 2010 - 08:54pm PT
|
MB1 - "I'm smarter, I'm thinking of a bigger picture, I have a PHD in something other then you, so I'm smarter"
Funny...
you claim that science fails to answer the fundamental questions...
But, you fail to answer them as well.
Ed is not claiming to be better, smarter or more educated than anyone...
Merely pointing out facts that we all have come to see as true.
MB1 = NUT
Thanks Port Edit:
"will you seek God or some alien in death?????
The two are equally stupid"
Indeed
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Oct 30, 2010 - 09:16pm PT
|
Ugh! I'm feeling some self righteous, I'm better than you, entitlement, approaching megalomania here. Didn't you learn in all of your logic courses that pedantic posturing is not the way to win an argument or to get someone to see your side?
Now that's funny and demonstrates the extent to which you are quick to dismiss somebody that doesn't agree with you for any reason. Ed stated that I didn't understand mathematical logic. I responded that I certainly did and better than most even among trained philosophers. YOUR response is that I'm being self-righteous.
Oh well, I guess that nobody is prepared to be reasonable on this subject. Instead of giving me ANY points, even those to which I'm clearly entitled, people are simply determined to claim EVERY point, even those to which they CLEARLY are not entitled.
Typical for the taco, and typical for empiricists that refuse to even consider the alternatives. Shame on you for thinking that ALL Christians are "close-minded"! You are no more responsive to evidence than the worst of them!
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Oct 30, 2010 - 09:22pm PT
|
Actually, I have answered some questions quite well for anybody willing to open their minds a moment to see them.
Ed, next you'll be asking me to PROVE the existence of God. What I have already done is show you that neither the principle of addition nor the Pythagorean Theorem were discovered or proved by appeal to empirical "facts," that instead they CANNOT be discovered or proved that way.
My point was to demonstrate some of the limitations of empiricism, which is all I have to do to establish my overarching point that empiricism is a limited form of knowledge-gathering.
And, again, I've said nothing resembling "I'm smarter than anybody." ALL I've done is respond to Ed's challenge that I don't know what I'm talking about. Ed never needs to say such a thing, because, like with all physicists, you guys all fawn all over them, granting them more credit for intelligence/education than they are due. All I'm asking for is the simple acknowledgment that Ed's challenge to my knowledge of this narrow subject is unfounded.
Anybody care to argue fairly?
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Oct 30, 2010 - 09:48pm PT
|
madbolter1
Since your first post in this thread I clearly understood what you where trying to convey.
I also could see very clearly how people misunderstood by their reply.
I believe sometimes people thru their bias will look for a key point to knock down and gloss over the rest.
I like how you try to be thorough and explain your points.
It's a good discussion .....
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!