There are several different things you could mean by this.
Yes. The big context are science and ethics. In science, we work with facts, and from them we develop a hypothesis (opinion). Someone can agree with one hypothesis, and become true, until it proven otherwise. In ethics, everything is just opinions.
Do you agree that, outside of human cognition, some things happen rather than others?
Yes. If I can simplify it, only one thing is happened outside of our cognition, and its linear with time.
isn’t it practically useful if our expectations are in line with the sorts of things that actually happen?
isn’t it practically useful if our expectations are in line with the sorts of things that actually happen?
No. I thing that would become confirmation bias.
So you do accept scientific evidence, then- simple (approximate) models that explain well-verified patterns should be taken as practically true, until their limits are found. Right?
(Otherwise, on what grounds do you cite research about confirmation bias?)
So you do accept scientific evidence, then- simple (approximate) models that explain well-verified patterns should be taken as practically true, until their limits are found. Right?
Yes and no, depends on the context. In reality, some of patterns can be taken as practically true and some of it is not.
As an example, If I drop something from top of building, it’s always go down to the ground; this pattern is always reproducible with the same result by all peoples who can test it. But, if I drink hot water when I’m sick and I get healthy in the next morning, that would become biased, because it’s not always reproducible with the same result.
I think, it’s only a matter of how someone defined the value for “well-verified” and “limit” until it become true for himself.
So you’re talking about a quantitative difference rather than a qualitative one- we should be far more skeptical about our generalizations than we’re inclined to be. A good point in this community, but phrasing it as “no truth” probably communicates the wrong concept.
Yes. The big context are science and ethics. In science, we work with facts, and from them we develop a hypothesis (opinion). Someone can agree with one hypothesis, and become true, until it proven otherwise. In ethics, everything is just opinions.
Yes. If I can simplify it, only one thing is happened outside of our cognition, and its linear with time.
No. I think that would become confirmation bias.
So you do accept scientific evidence, then- simple (approximate) models that explain well-verified patterns should be taken as practically true, until their limits are found. Right?
(Otherwise, on what grounds do you cite research about confirmation bias?)
Link to a previous discussion I had about post-modernism and science. Brief summary: Models—no, Predictions—yes.
Yes and no, depends on the context. In reality, some of patterns can be taken as practically true and some of it is not.
As an example, If I drop something from top of building, it’s always go down to the ground; this pattern is always reproducible with the same result by all peoples who can test it. But, if I drink hot water when I’m sick and I get healthy in the next morning, that would become biased, because it’s not always reproducible with the same result.
I think, it’s only a matter of how someone defined the value for “well-verified” and “limit” until it become true for himself.
So you’re talking about a quantitative difference rather than a qualitative one- we should be far more skeptical about our generalizations than we’re inclined to be. A good point in this community, but phrasing it as “no truth” probably communicates the wrong concept.