barrington interview

Dave Lebling · 15 Oct 2014, 00:03 · from 2014-October.txt.gz

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: dlebling at hyraxes.com (Dave Lebling)
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 20:03:58 -0400
Subject: (urth) barrington interview
In-Reply-To: <BLU175-W506FA3CE08D549F76A5127CFAD0 at phx.gbl>
References: <BLU175-W506FA3CE08D549F76A5127CFAD0 at phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <543DB9EE.2000004 at hyraxes.com>

On 10/14/2014 2:50 PM, Lee wrote:
> Perhaps true. But all those observations were made from earth or 
> nearby and relayed to earth. Furthermore all the data was collected by 
> human-constructed machines. Then all the data was processed and 
> translated into pictures and numbers and other human tools which help 
> us understand things. You are impressed with our mastery of the 
> electro-magnetic spectrum. But what lies beyond gamma rays? And what 
> other spectrums exist which we cannot perceive in the slightest? The 
> answer must be, "We don't know". Both coming and going, the data you 
> cite has human bias stamped all over it. We cannot escape or transcend 
> our own basic humanity. Everything we do and everything we think is 
> intrinsically human and limited by the limitations of being human. 
> There is no way to avoid that. Math and science were invented by and 
> are used exclusively by humans.
I would appreciate a theory of why this makes a difference. Machines are 
not human, even if made by humans, so why should they be subject to any 
imaginary human biases?

Let me also chime in with those who suggest that the idea that 
mathematics isn't universally true are utterly wrong.

Really, seriously, Plato's Cave is not exactly a hill you should wish to 
die on.

> Absence of evidence does not prove a negative. That's a pretty basic 
> tenet of science/ logic. Especially in such a sparsely explored realm 
> as "the universe".
You can never prove a negative. Show some evidence that there is 
something that indicates the positive (as you propose it) might be true. 
Just saying "we don't know" is both untrue for large swathes of the 
universe, and basically tendentious without proposing any other view. 
Sure, you might say "God can do anything" (and I forget if you are in 
that camp) but show something that indicates that's something that has 
happened.

Dave Lebling

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net