Important question about ignorance, decision, social psychology and Schrödinger?
I'm on to something. I'm in a forum about a scientific topic. I'll paraphrase the topic with a
- half statue of a tardigrade on Venus
Okay, so we have two images, nothing else, of what is believed to be a statue of a half-tardigrade, taken by a probe. You can see the fine structures, the number of legs, and the head are relatively clear, but it's only half a thing. It looks pretty much like half an animal with a few legs, or perhaps something similar. Unfortunately, the complete image of this object is missing.
Now, in one forum, someone is claiming that it's an effect of perception (which is true) that makes us recognize a tardigrade. But someone says it could be something else, namely a statue , but he ca n't prove it; he's just unsure. Because the structures of the "stone" are really very fine, unusually fine. But there's still no evidence of aliens who could have built something like that. And humans haven't traveled very far to know anything about space. That means there's a lot of ignorance out there.
He knows that it doesn't really make sense at the moment and tries to argue that it could also be a statue and a mere illusion.
- Actually, it's more like both (Schrödinger's cat)
The cat is a thought experiment in which the cat in a box containing poison has two states: when the poison is released, or when it isn't. It is either dead or alive, until the box is opened.
Forum users, however, argue against this and deny that there is any possibility other than an optical illusion. No aliens, no asteroids, or other possibilities could have "created" the half-tardigrade there. They don't believe in a statue.
One user now claims that this decision is illogical, arguing that further investigation, more research, and more knowledge are needed to make a decision. He believes that it will behave more like the cat until the box is opened, i.e., until more information about space or the object is gathered.
Meanwhile, a forum member claims, "Do we all agree now that this is an optical illusion?" and receives many positive comments.
- The question: Is one user wrong or is it more likely the forum members?
- Is this a sign of the inability to accept not knowing something?
- Is Schrödinger’s argument appropriate here?
(1 votes)
Loading...
Is the user wrong?
No, he argues scientifically correct that more research is needed. The forum members who judge in advance act unscientific.
Does the forum opinion show an inability to accept ignorance?
Yes, the categorical rejection of other possibilities indicates.
Is Schrödinger suitable?
As analogy yes, although not in a strictly scientific sense
As an argument, the “do not know” will be an always appropriate statement or acceptance (kartesian daemon). But would that include 0.01% of all other possibilities? If you know what that would be.
What does not discredit the user anyway he has “right” or theoretically he does not even have to express himself, so he simply left it to ignorance himself.
I don’t understand what you mean. And I don’t know what this has to do with Descartes. In his meditations it is not a scientific ignorance per se, but as I can recognize myself despite deception of the evil spirit.
hm, well…
Now you’re with Kant.
Descartes did an experiment in which he wanted to know what to know if you don’t know. In doing so, he has proved with logical arguments that man exists.
True, there is only the connection to ignorance as the main category, with Descates referring it more to himself and his thinking, than an external object, which, however, could not have any knowledge except what one perceives, the image in itself, what one recognizes, not what it really is.
No, this is a significant misunderstanding of Descartes.
First of all, Descartes does not speak of a demon, but of a “Genius Malignus” so evil spirit. Apparently, demon has established itself in the English translation.
We find the thoughts of Descartes in his work “Meditations über den Erste Philosophie”.
In these meditations he makes a thought experiment. He imagines there’s an evil spirit that pretends to take:
I have no certainty. I don’t know if what I know is true if what I see, smell, hear, taste. Whether what I thought was true. I don’t know.
But I know one thing. Even if I in all mines Thinking be deceived, I am the one who thinks. And so he comes to the famous phrase “I think so I am.”
What you mean is a certain ignorance as a scientific openness. In science nothing is natural or self-explanatory. Everything has to be questioned and supported and proven argumentatively. Everything needs its reason.
isn’t it that the cardsian demon is an imaginary shape that simply should show that the ignorance about something, this possibility of daemon? So if you say that you don’t know, what you don’t know is all possible spaghettimonsters, bolzmann brains, kartesian daemon… which leads ignorance not to lead as a real argument and also would not be helpful for a invalid solution.
on the one hand it is about “no affirmation (I don’t know what it is, it looks like fairytales)” but “submission (it is that or that, something believes, pieces of stone, what else)” which is based on the fact that one disregards the ignorance. this ignorance contains all other possibilities. but what is inscientific since we do not know much as human.
Personally, I would rather see it as a case for “Ockham’s razor”. Of course, we can’t know it safely, but the probability that it is an optical illusion is higher than that there is half a statue of a bear animal.
This is a way to decide if you have to do that, but does the truth bring us closer to the object?
Would the NASA with the probe NOT be more precise inquiries because you chose the Ockahm principle? The question would be how high the weighting of DEM object to OTHER possibilities would be.
But until then the object would be both “this” and “jenes”.
How high is the probability that there is no opt. Deception?