I don't know

25 views
Skip to first unread message

Cary Cook

unread,
Oct 12, 2019, 8:26:58 PM10/12/19
to bys-...@googlegroups.com

I plan to post this on Facebook/Twitter,

but I want to see if there is any criticism first.

------------------------------------------------------------

“I don’t know,”

  is not a theory.

 

If I propose a theory

to explain something,

and you can’t think of

a more sensible theory,

then my theory

(however unsubstantiated)

is the best theory you can

think of to explain that thing.

And you should admit it,

rather than hide behind

“I don’t know.”

--------------------------------------------------------------

 

Cary

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 

Email

unread,
Oct 13, 2019, 12:53:49 AM10/13/19
to bys-...@googlegroups.com
Cary,

What if my theory is that Q.M. explains sentience,
and you really "don't know" enough about Q.M. to
take a position, one way or the other.
Would you be "hiding behind" anything if you were
to truthfully admit that you simply don't know?

- Don


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BYS vs MH" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bys-vs-mh+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bys-vs-mh/5da26f52.1c69fb81.79694.a3e4SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING%40gmr-mx.google.com.

Cary Cook

unread,
Oct 13, 2019, 4:36:03 AM10/13/19
to bys-...@googlegroups.com

Don,

Good point.  How’s this?

“I don’t know,”

  is not a theory.

 

If I propose a theory

to explain something,

and you understand it, but can’t think of

a more sensible theory,

then my theory

(however unsubstantiated)

is the best theory you can

think of to explain that thing.

And you should admit it,

rather than hide behind

“I don’t know.”

 

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

Email

unread,
Oct 13, 2019, 11:47:54 AM10/13/19
to bys-...@googlegroups.com
Cary,

The rules for scientific inquiry are all formally canonized:

If you propose a theory (whether or not I understand it) then I have the following options:

1) If I can present observable falsifying evidence then there is no theory.

2) If I can present another theory (which cannot be falsified) then there are two theories.

3) If two competing theories explain all observations equally well, the simpler theory is "preferred."

4) If I cannot present a satisfactory competing theory, there is one theory (yours) whether or not I understand it.

- Don


Cary Cook

unread,
Oct 13, 2019, 10:13:00 PM10/13/19
to bys-...@googlegroups.com

Don,

 

Thanks.  I agree with all that.  Do you think any of it implies that I should change or trash my revised draft?

 

Cary

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 

Email

unread,
Oct 13, 2019, 10:30:20 PM10/13/19
to bys-...@googlegroups.com
Cary,

I'm leaning toward "change or trash."

While a person shouldn't say "I don't know"
when they think they do know you are wrong,
that is more like telling a lie than "hiding"
behind anything. In any case, it has nothing
in particular to do with theories.
People should always be free to admit what
they really don't know -- whether or not it
involves anyone's theory.

- Don


Cary Cook

unread,
Oct 14, 2019, 2:34:30 AM10/14/19
to bys-...@googlegroups.com

Don,

 

What does this statement mean?

a person shouldn't say "I don't know" when they think they do know you are wrong,

What did I say that implies it?

Email

unread,
Oct 14, 2019, 3:19:10 AM10/14/19
to bys-...@googlegroups.com
Cary,

I don't believe you said anything that implies that.

I was trying to come up with an example where saying, "I don't know" might be the wrong thing to say. The closest I could get was assuming that they were somehow "convinced" their opponent was wrong (they "felt" they did know -- but had no real answer to give) and said something like, "Well I don't know about that," in a tone implying that they would certainly know about it if you were right, trying to imply that their ignorance was evidence for an error on your part.

I consider that essentially equivalent to telling a lie.

- Don


Cary Cook

unread,
Oct 14, 2019, 8:10:34 PM10/14/19
to bys-...@googlegroups.com

Don,

 

Ok, I think I see what you're saying.  If so, I don't think it's legitimate.  Even if you don't know I'm wrong, or if you just "feel" that I'm wrong, you should still have the integrity to admit that my theory is the most sensible theory you can think of.

 

I know hardly anyone does that.  But I do it, because I'm one righteous mau fau.

don stoner

unread,
Oct 14, 2019, 8:52:35 PM10/14/19
to bys-...@googlegroups.com
That's silly. If I really "don't know," it's likely to be because I don't know enough about the subject to have an informed opinion about it. And if I don't even know that much, why should you presume that my opinion regarding whether or not your theory is any more sensible than the first thing that happens to pop into my head, or any of the other theories possibly presented by other people about the same subject (concerning which I am also not sufficiently informed to have a legitimate opinion).

Cary Cook

unread,
Oct 15, 2019, 3:23:25 AM10/15/19
to bys-...@googlegroups.com

Don,

 

If I propose a theory

to explain something,

and you understand it,

then you know enough about the subject to judge the theory - at least relative to some other theory, whether or not you have an informed opinion about the subject. You don't need an informed opinion in order to judge between the apparent sensibility of 2 theories.

 

Can you think of a counter-example?

 

Cary

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 

Email

unread,
Oct 15, 2019, 10:42:51 AM10/15/19
to bys-...@googlegroups.com
If I "understand the theory," but claim I don" [know],
then I'm telling a fib. I do know. There is no defense for that.
If I say, "I don't know," then I should mean it.

- Don


Email

unread,
Oct 15, 2019, 11:46:19 AM10/15/19
to bys-...@googlegroups.com
correction: but claim I do [know],

- Don


Cary Cook

unread,
Oct 15, 2019, 9:34:18 PM10/15/19
to bys-...@googlegroups.com

Correct.  But that doesn’t address my post, or my question.

Email

unread,
Oct 15, 2019, 10:25:25 PM10/15/19
to bys-...@googlegroups.com
Then we must be using our terms differently (yet again), because I haven't got a clue what you could possibly mean by that. However, I'll try another shot in the dark: If I "really" understand your theory then I will probably have an opinion about it -- which I may or may not choose to express, depending on whether or not I judge it to be an effective use of our time.

Alternately, the phrase "I don't know" (often followed by "about that" or spoken with a signature tonal emphasis) is often used to express doubt rather than ignorance. Are you intending to take your statement in that direction?

- Don


Cary Cook

unread,
Oct 15, 2019, 11:17:35 PM10/15/19
to bys-...@googlegroups.com

Don,

 

I agree with your shot in the dark, but it still doesn't address my post or the question at the end of it.  I'll try being more specific:

 

If I propose a theory to explain something,

and you understand that theory, and the thing being explained,

then you know enough about the thing being explained and the theory to judge if that theory is more sensible (at least to you) than some other theory that you may come up with.  And you can make that judgment, whether or not you have an informed opinion about the thing being explained. You don't need an informed opinion about any of it in order to judge between the sensibility of 2 theories, both of which you understand.

 

Can you think of a counter-example?

---------------------

Your final question:

Are you intending to take your statement in that direction?

No.  I could say more, but that would just open a gate to a tangent.

Email

unread,
Oct 15, 2019, 11:56:56 PM10/15/19
to bys-...@googlegroups.com
OK, I'll try again:

then you know enough about the thing being explained and the theory to judge if that theory is more sensible (at least to you) than some other theory that you may come up with.


1) I know enough about the thing being explained to judge (form an opinion about) a theory ...

And you can make that judgment, whether or not you have an informed opinion about the thing being explained.


yet:
2. I may not need an informed opinion about the thing being explained (to judge) that theory ...

Sorry, I still can't fathom the distinction you are attempting to make here.

If your present theory (under discussion here) is an example of the sort of theory you are addressing in your question, then I haven't been able even to figure out what point you are trying to make. It sounds to me like you are simply contradicting yourself, but it is also possible that I simply don't understand what you mean by the words you are using.

A this point, I could say "I don't know" whether or not this theory is the "best we have so far" or if your (hypothetical) Alzheimer's is just more advanced than my own (which is sufficiently advanced to scare me). If you believe that is "hiding behind" anything, then I'll freely admit that it sounds to me like you aren't really making any sense (and that your theory is therefore not really sensible), with the caveat that I realize I might be missing something very important here.  

- Don


Cary Cook

unread,
Oct 16, 2019, 3:27:43 AM10/16/19
to bys-...@googlegroups.com

Don,

 

I see no point in continuing this.

I've posted the most recent version of it in FB.

https://www.facebook.com/cary.e.cook

Email

unread,
Oct 20, 2019, 11:23:39 AM10/20/19
to bys-...@googlegroups.com
Hi Cary,

I see no point in continuing this.


You are probably correct about that.

I've posted the most recent version of it in FB [...]


Whereas my bias tends to more run in this direction:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
(boldly presuming I'm understanding this correctly)

No need to reply unless you want to. I'm OK dropping it.

- Don


Cary Cook

unread,
Oct 20, 2019, 7:10:05 PM10/20/19
to bys-...@googlegroups.com

Don,

 

What have I asserted to be true because it has not yet been proven false or false because it has not yet been proven true?

Email

unread,
Oct 21, 2019, 1:09:37 PM10/21/19
to bys-...@googlegroups.com
I'm guessing our failure to communicate is connected to your usual
binary (digital) categories vs. my graduated (analog) ones. 

When I don't see a way to assign validity or falsity to a theory (never
"truth" under scientific methods), then it means I am also unable to
assign levels of grey-shade to my validity-confidence (including what
I presume you are calling being "sensible").

Neither relativity no QM were originally regarded to be "sensible,"
(and remain questionable, at best, in many circles), while both are
completely "valid" theories (some would say "scientific laws") in that
there are versions of both which (so far) have not been "falsified."

- Don

Cary Cook

unread,
Oct 21, 2019, 9:36:06 PM10/21/19
to bys-...@googlegroups.com

You can’t do much logic with vague (graduated, analog) categories.

Email

unread,
Oct 22, 2019, 3:36:05 AM10/22/19
to bys-...@googlegroups.com
That's probably why "science" isn't called "logic."
(You did use the term "theory" rather than "proof.")
Math is analog. Logic is digital. Neither are "vague."
("Confidence" can be expressed mathematically.)

- Don


Cary Cook

unread,
Oct 22, 2019, 5:53:30 AM10/22/19
to bys-...@googlegroups.com

I can't do science, because I'm not a scientist.

But you CAN do philosophy, and you used to do it.

Are you now REFUSING?

Email

unread,
Oct 22, 2019, 12:05:47 PM10/22/19
to bys-...@googlegroups.com
My only "theory" about "logic" is that it's a "valid" method of seeking
"truth," (in spite of that not being a "logically valid" conclusion). The
remainder of my logical forays either do or do not follow "logically."

It's my understanding that "theories," like the one above, are not strictly
"logical." When we discuss them, we are not really using "logic" (at
least not exclusively), but are entering other demesnes of "philosophy."

Likewise, classification of your "theories" is not strictly "logical."
Are you now "refusing" to do "science" within your "philosophy" ?
(Newton's laws were originally labeled "Principles of 'Philosophy.'")

- Don


Email

unread,
Oct 22, 2019, 3:44:14 PM10/22/19
to bys-...@googlegroups.com

I can't do science, because I'm not a scientist.


This is about all that you need to know to "do science":

Cary Cook

unread,
Oct 22, 2019, 7:06:31 PM10/22/19
to bys-...@googlegroups.com

If that's all I need to know, no problem.

But you recently posted comments that make no philosophical sense, and then claim that they make sense to a scientist.  I can't know if they make sense by your " Scientific Method as an Ongoing Process" chart.

 

You know how to talk philosophically; and you know how to talk over my head, and claim it makes scientific sense.  What's it gonna be?

Email

unread,
Oct 22, 2019, 10:54:28 PM10/22/19
to bys-...@googlegroups.com
Hi Cary,

If that's all I need to know, no problem.


That chart shows how "theories" are supposed to be evaluated.  If you study it, you will notice that there is no exit marked "logical certainty."  That always limits the credibility of any proper "theory" (even a theory about logic).

. . .

I can't know if they make sense by your " Scientific Method as an Ongoing Process" chart.


Exactly!   You "can't know" !
You "can't know" whether or not any specific theory is even "sensible" -- not without an inordinate investment of time and energy.  And therefore you "don't know" how to evaluate each specific theory -- if you have not taken the time and effort to study the minutia of the process which derived it.  I have the exact same problem with "any" theory until I have done the work.  Available time severely limits this.           
 
I freely accept your "I don't know" evaluation (above) as being completely honest, and accuse you of "hiding behind" nothing.  Further, I do not require that you "admit" that my position is the more "sensible" one --even if the general method (theoretically) enables me to measure the distance to the moon from my backyard (with the help of a backyard laser and a corner-mirror which the astronauts left up there).  That doesn't actually apply to the present question.

You know how to talk philosophically; and you know how to talk over my head, and claim it makes scientific sense. 


I would like to fix the "talk over [your] head" part, but I can't do it from my end alone.

What's it gonna be?


The present question (evaluating theories) falls into the "scientific" subset of philosophy.  My ongoing offer to help you understand technical and scientific concepts still stands.  Please make use of it whenever you have the time and inclination.

- Don


Cary Cook

unread,
Oct 23, 2019, 5:05:41 AM10/23/19
to bys-...@googlegroups.com

Don,

 

Suppose you start with an observed phenomenon, and list 20 logically possible theories to explain it, but you have none that can be tested.  Are you saying you can't subjectively rate the probability of those theories.  Or would you treat them all as equally probable?

Email

unread,
Oct 23, 2019, 6:23:10 AM10/23/19
to bys-...@googlegroups.com
Cary,

Suppose you start with an observed phenomenon, and list 20 logically possible theories to explain it, but you have none that can be tested.  Are you saying you can't subjectively rate the probability of those theories.  Or would you treat them all as equally probable?

That would depend on the 20 particular theories, and what fractional knowledge I had about each one. E.g., I would start by throwing out all theories for which I could see obvious flaws (perpetual motion devices, cold fusion, theories which deny my own reason, awareness or my own observations, ...) and then work back to less obvious errors. Since I have messed with scientific truth and error for most of my life, I'm actually pretty good at sorting out the theories which are thrown my way.

It's very difficult to think or a theory which can't be tested at all. The last time someone brought me a perpetual-motion idea (it actually happens pretty frequently) he claimed 1) he had built one, 2) it worked too well, 3) it destroyed itself in a dangerous manner, 4) he needed lots of money to build a better and safer one. I drew him a design for a cheap and safe one made of plywood (instead of steel) and assured him he needed a working model (without any of the standard cheats) to convince anyone the 2nd law of thermodynamics was simply wrong. He wasn't happy, but he managed to keep his cool and leave. See: https://xkcd.com/2217/

Your original question presumed I was missing all of this this information (actually, string theory would be a pretty good arena in which to lose me pretty quickly). In that case, "I don't know" would be the obvious answer. I mostly do OK with: math, general physics, chemistry, geology, astronomy, cosmology, paleo-biology, evolutionary biology, biochemistry, computer science, and  electrical & mechanical engineering.) It is my opinion that many others should say "I don't know" more frequently than they actually do.

The "existence of sentience" might be a good example of an "observed" but "unexplained" (at least not conclusively) phenomenon. I am presently (very slowly) working my way through Koch's new book on the subject. (As I explained in WDG, I think he's wrong and that Penrose and Hammeroff are closer to the truth.) In this case, Koch, Penrose, and Hammeroff are performing lots of experiments, but it's difficult to be sure what's happening when your test subject can't tell you what they are experiencing. I took a side in this case because I am convinced (by a great deal of experimental evidence from nearly every field of scientific study) that "thought" has to be quantum mechanical (primordial and undetermined), rather than computational (emergent and pre-determined). Even so, I read everything I can find that Koch writes.

- Don


Cary Cook

unread,
Oct 23, 2019, 9:28:36 PM10/23/19
to bys-...@googlegroups.com

Don,

 

This is good.  I can work with this.

 

You test, or try to test theories by throwing out all theories for which you can see obvious flaws, and then work back to less obvious errors.  So:

 

If I propose a theory to explain something in string theory, and you understand it, but can’t think of

a theory with less obvious errors, then you are justified in saying you don't know if it is the best theory you can

think of to explain that thing.

 

But if I propose a theory to explain something in math, general physics, chemistry, geology, astronomy, cosmology, paleo-biology, evolutionary biology, biochemistry, computer science, or  electrical & mechanical engineering, and you understand it, but can’t think of a theory with less obvious errors, then my theory (however unsubstantiated) is the best theory you can think of to explain that thing.

 

Right?

 

Cary

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 

From: 'Email' via BYS vs MH
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2019 3:23 AM
To: bys-...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: I don't know

 

Cary,

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BYS vs MH" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bys-vs-mh+...@googlegroups.com.

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages