home.social

#empiricism — Public Fediverse posts

Live and recent posts from across the Fediverse tagged #empiricism, aggregated by home.social.

fetched live
  1. Exploring the Foundations of the Scientific Revolution

    Illustrating the integration of faith and reason from key Christian scientists.

    Several notable and important people led to the modern Scientific Revolution. It grew from their faith rooted in a Christian worldview. These philosophers and scientists founded their beliefs on a rational knowable Creator believing He would leave this universe imbued with rational laws that do not change. As a result using a sound investigative method those laws might be discovered.

    The initial start to the development of modern science was heavily influenced by two philosophers who taught and developed the methodology of scientific empiricism: Roger Bacon in the 13th century and Francis Bacon in the 16th/17th century.

    Roger Bacon (c. 1219/20–1292), known as Doctor Mirabilis, was a medieval English Franciscan friar, philosopher, and polymath who is considered one of the earliest European advocates of the scientific method and empiricism.

    His philosophical contributions include:

    • Empirical Science: Bacon emphasized direct observation and controlled experiment as essential correctives to authority and tradition, influencing the addition of optics to the medieval university curriculum. 
    • Major Works: In 1267, he submitted the Opus Majus to Pope Clement IV, a comprehensive encyclopedia covering grammar, logic, mathematics, optics, and moral philosophy. 
    • Scientific Innovations: He was the first European to record the formula for gunpowder and made significant studies in geometrical optics, vision, and refraction, anticipating developments in lenses and spectacles. 
    • Imprisonment: Between 1277 and 1279, Bacon was likely imprisoned or placed under house arrest by his Franciscan superiors due to his interest in astrology, alchemy, and “suspected novelties,” though modern scholars debate the historical accuracy of this event. 
    • Legacy: While deeply rooted in medieval scholasticism and theology, his insistence on experimental science (scientia experimentalis) positions him as a precursor to modern scientific inquiry. 

    However the next Bacon has had the greatest influence on the fundamentals of modern science.

    Francis Bacon (1561–1626) was an English philosopher and statesman widely regarded as the father of empiricism and a foundational figure in the development of the scientific method.  He argued that knowledge should be derived from inductive reasoning and careful observation of nature, rejecting the deductive Aristotelian logic that dominated his era.

    His philosophical contributions include:

    • The Baconian Method: A systematic approach to science emphasizing experimentation, data collection, and the elimination of biases (known as the “Idols”).
    • Key Works: He authored Novum Organum (1620), which outlined his new logical framework, and The Advancement of Learning (1605), advocating for the practical application of science to benefit humanity. 
    • Philosophy of Science: Bacon believed that “knowledge is power,” asserting that scientific inquiry should not only seek truth but also produce tangible improvements in human life. 
    • Legacy: His ideas heavily influenced the founders of the Royal Society and helped usher in the Scientific Revolution, shifting natural philosophy toward empirical and experimental practices. 

    Francis Bacon was a devout Anglican Christian who sought to reconcile his faith with the emerging scientific method.  He believed that studying nature through empirical observation was a way to understand God’s creation and that scientific progress served a spiritual duty to alleviate human suffering. 

    While Bacon argued for keeping theology and natural philosophy in separate spheres to prevent religious dogma from hindering scientific inquiry, he remained critical of atheism.

    Bacon famously stated that “a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men’s minds about to religion,” viewing the increase of knowledge as a fulfillment of biblical prophecy.

    However he was not a biblical creationist in the modern sense. He believed that mixing theological dogma with natural philosophy (science) corrupted both, famously criticizing those who tried to build systems of physics based on Genesis or Job.

    Bacon articulated the metaphor of “Two Books” written by God:

    • The Book of God’s Word (Scripture): Reveals God’s will, moral laws, and the path to salvation. Bacon considered this essential for spiritual truth and believed it should be studied deeply. 
    • The Book of God’s Works (Nature): Reveals God’s power and omnipotence. He argued that studying nature was a religious duty that helped humanity understand the Creator’s greatness. 

    He urged scholars to pursue “endless progress” in both books but warned strictly against “unwisely mingling or confounding” them.

    Of course, I totally disagree his “unwisely mingling” view. There are “Two Books” representing one creation, One Creator. The two books are interwoven by the very nature of the creation. It is all one system created by God and any philosophy that ignores this fact is ultimately doomed to failure.

    However he rightfully is credited with what is nowadays called the Scientific Method: hypothesis, experiment and data collection that may disprove the initial hypothesis. No experimental results can ever prove the hypothesis. If you want proofs, try mathematics, which is a closed artificial universe.

    I have no doubt that this method gave a big start to the Scientific Revolution, which really started with Francis Bacon in the early 1600s. However in all my own experience in university research labs what was actually used were Bayesian Methods.

    Bayesian Methods are statistical techniques that use Bayes’ theorem to update the probability of a hypothesis as more evidence or data becomes available. 

    Instead of treating unknown yet-to-be-determined parameters as fixed, Bayesian analysis interprets probability as a degree of belief, allowing for the incorporation of prior knowledge or subjective beliefs alongside observed data. Bayes’ theorem uses a conditional probability to update the prior knowledge.

    That means that Bayesian methods build on prior knowledge. And that also means prior biases, which is often seen when a parameter is measured over time. The prior measured value is considered with more weight than it should be and so new values are chosen that fall closest to the prior. What results is a progressive creep in the value towards the final accepted value, the true value. This can be seen in the historical measured values for the round-trip speed of light, c.

    Historical measurements of the speed of light, c

    Also in the measurements of the electron charge (e).

    Historical measurements of the electron charge, e

    The bias is not due to the error bounds not overlapping the final correct result but due to weight placed on the priors. So a results that favour a prior is accepted before newer values which may be more accurate. This bias is a feature of a worldview.

    Thomas Bayes (c. 1701–1761) was a Presbyterian minister and a member of the English Nonconformist (Dissenter) religious tradition. While his father was a traditional Presbyterian, scholars describe Bayes’ personal theological beliefs as Unitarian or Arian, indicating he strayed from standard Christian orthodoxy. (That is the same accusation leveled against Isaac Newton, so perhaps there is some doubt there.)

    Bayes mathematical work, specifically Bayes’ theorem, was originally developed to provide a probabilistic defense of Christianity against the skeptical arguments of philosopher David Hume, who had questioned the validity of miracles.

    Bayes published two works during his lifetime: a theological tract titled Divine Benevolence (1731) and a mathematical defense of Isaac Newton’s calculus (1736).

    Barring a miraculous revelation from God, in a dream or vision, most experimental development comes from a long list of prior researchers, scientists who slowly advanced the field — one building on the work of another. This is what the oft quoted expression means.

    “If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.”

    The expression is most famously attributed to Isaac Newton, who used it in a 1675 letter to his rival Robert Hooke. However, the metaphor actually originated in the 12th century with the French philosopher Bernard of Chartres, who described humans as “dwarfs on the shoulders of giants.”

    Isaac Newton (1643–1727) was an English polymath and a central figure in the Scientific Revolution, renowned for his foundational contributions to physics, mathematics, and optics.

    Newton attended Trinity College, Cambridge, ostensibly preparing to become an Anglican minister, but spent his time developing his groundbreaking theories. The years 1665–1666 was a period of intense personal productivity known as his annus mirabilis

    He was a deeply religious Christian whose theological writings vastly outnumbered his scientific works. Newton believed in God the Father as the sole creator and Jesus Christ as His divine Son, but some have claimed he denied their co-equality, rejecting the Trinitarian doctrine.1,2 Don’t be misled by such claims. He was an alchemist too, but he wasn’t a witch. Alchemy at that time was the start of modern chemistry and metallurgy.

    He viewed his scientific discoveries as a means to understand God’s design in nature, believing that the laws of physics revealed the order of a rational Creator. Newton spent decades studying biblical prophecy (particularly Daniel and Revelation) and church history, seeking to restore the “pure” faith of the early apostolic era.

    His major works include Principia Mathematica (1687), which established the laws of motion and universal gravitation, and Opticks (1704), which detailed his experiments on light and color, including the invention of the reflecting telescope (1668). 

    Isaac Newton adapted and popularized the concept to acknowledge that his scientific discoveries built upon the work of predecessors like René Descartes. And this situation has been the norm since Isaac Newton.

    René Descartes (1596–1650) was a French philosopher, mathematician, and scientist widely regarded as the father of modern Western philosophy and a key figure in the Scientific Revolution

    He is most famous for the epistemological foundationalist dictum “I think, therefore I am” (Cogito, ergo sum) and for developing Cartesian dualism, the theory that the mind and body are distinct substances.

    René Descartes was a Roman Catholic who actively sought to align his philosophy with Christian doctrine.  He worked diligently to provide rational proofs for the existence of God, aiming to reconcile the new science with Christian beliefs and avoid conflict with ecclesiastical authorities. 

    He insisted that truths of faith were superior to human reason and separated theological doctrines (like the Trinity) from his rational metaphysics. 

    In works like the Meditations, he offered arguments for God’s existence (such as the trademark and ontological arguments) to establish God as the guarantor of truth and the creator of the universe. 

    His distinction between mind (immaterial soul) and body (material matter) was intended to support the immortality of the soul, a core tenet of Christian theology. 

    Despite his personal devotion, critics accused him of atheism because his mechanistic view of the physical world seemed to exclude God from daily natural processes, leading to the prohibition of his books by the Catholic Church in 1663. 

    Ultimately, Descartes is viewed as a figure who tried to rationalize religion without abandoning it, positioning human reason as a path to understanding God rather than a replacement for faith. 

    That is quite different to the humanist arguments of atheistic human reason without any foundation in God.

    What we now need to understand is that not all science is science. It is not all subject to the Scientific Method even allowing for the human biases and Bayesian inference.

    When an hypothesis cannot be tested because the subject lies in the past for the researcher it cannot be called operational or experimental science.

    One problem that arises here is that the scientists themselves cannot recognise their own biases and proceed as if they are validly testing their assumed hypothesis. Their minds are dominated by their worldview, and that could be based on there being no Creator (atheism), or that the Creator is no longer around (deism) and all universal parameters evolve from their initial conditions.

    In cases where an historical parameter is sought, the science should be called forensic or historical science because no direct evidence of the sought-after parameter is available. As a result proxies are used. But the proxies also cannot be directly tested for what they are assumed to mean.

    For example, when trying to determine historical Earth temperatures tree rings or Oxygen isotope ratios are used as proxies. They need calibration but even the calibrations cannot be unequivocal since no one has a time machine. No past measurement is possible. All are inferred from some measurement done in the present.

    Francis Bacon kept separate his “Two Books”. To keep them separate is a flawed approach, which other Christian apologists have also used. It is very similar to what Hugh Ross (of Reason to Believe ministry) teaches. He speaks of the 66 books of the bible but then there is the 67th book of nature. Ross claims God revealed that to him before he was even a believer in Christ.

    It is a compromise because it does not allow the Creator to work. It assumes that in terms of a literal history in the Genesis account there is error and the language must be reinterpreted to fit in with modern science.

    In Ross’ case he believes in the big bang origin of the universe, and so he squeezes the big bang timeline into the 6 x 24-hour days of Genesis creation. Ross accepts the multi-billion-year ages of the Earth and its rock strata, fitting in long periods for each day of creation. He employs a sequence of progressive creation acts that are intended to correspond to the sequence of events in the Genesis account. But one problem with that is the order. They are out of sequence. As well, his progressive “creation” events are, for all intents and purposes, infinitesimally close to Darwinian evolution of species (which he denies).

    Each flash indicates a conflict in sequence between the biblical account and the big bang evolution story. Note that ‘long-age creationists’, though they deny biological transformism, hold to the identical order of appearance as evolutionists. There are 23 conflicts in total shown here. Credit: Idea from Dr. Russ Humphreys.

    Why is it so difficult for even the men of faith to completely accept the Christian worldview in all its details. Thankfully there have been many who have done so. But even among the believers there have been many who compromised on the scriptures in favour of secular interpretations of the physical sciences. They could not fully integrate into their worldview one big picture for the handiwork of God.

    Footnote:

    1. Some have accused Newton of Arianism, but this is rejected by Pfizenmaier, T.C., Was Isaac Newton an Arian?, Journal of the History of Ideas 68(1):57–80, 1997. See here.
    2. A very detailed defense of Newton’s Trinitarianism is Van Alan Herd, The theology of Sir Isaac Newton, gradworks.umi.com, Doctoral Dissertation, University of Oklahoma, 2008. This documents much evidence, including Newton’s words refuting tritheism and affirming Trinitarian monotheism:

    That to say there is but one God, ye father of all things, excludes not the son & Holy ghost from the Godhead becaus they are virtually conteined & implied in the father. … To apply ye name of God to ye Son or holy ghost as distinct persons from the father makes them not divers Gods from ye Father. … Soe there is divinity in ye father, divinity in ye Son, & divinity in ye holy ghost, & yet they are not thre forces but one force.

    Related Reading

    Free Subscribers

    Subscribe to our Newsletters as a Free Subscriber and be notified by email. Just put your email address in the box at the bottom of your screen.

    You’ll get an email each time we publish a new

    Premium Subscribers

    Subscribe to our Newsletters as a Premium Subscribers at $5 USD/month or $30 USD/year (you choose). Cancel anytime.

    Paid Premium Subscribers will get exclusive access to certain content I publish. That will only cost you a cup of coffee per month.

    Also you’ll be able to download, for free, a PDF of my book Apocalypse Now and also a PDF of my book The Physics of Creation The Creator’s Ultimate Design for Earth.

    You can download them from the link below.

    click for Premium SubscriptionSubmitting form

    This is how you can support my work. I have been publishing this website for 10 years now and up to 2024 I never asked for any support.

    Press the button “Premium” on the front page to find a list of Premium content. Thanks so much to all supporters.

    At a minimum, please join as a Free Subscriber. It’ll cost you nothing. It may also help me beat the shadow banning of some posts.

    Comments Welcome Below

    Rate this:

    #BayesianMethods #BigBang #empiricism #FrancisBacon #historicalScience #IsaacNewton #operationalScience #originOfTheUniverse #ReneDescartes #RogerBacon #ScientificMethod #ScientificRevolution #ThomasBayes
  2. Exploring the Foundations of the Scientific Revolution

    Illustrating the integration of faith and reason from key Christian scientists.

    Several notable and important people led to the modern Scientific Revolution. It grew from their faith rooted in a Christian worldview. These philosophers and scientists founded their beliefs on a rational knowable Creator believing He would leave this universe imbued with rational laws that do not change. As a result using a sound investigative method those laws might be discovered.

    The initial start to the development of modern science was heavily influenced by two philosophers who taught and developed the methodology of scientific empiricism: Roger Bacon in the 13th century and Francis Bacon in the 16th/17th century.

    Roger Bacon (c. 1219/20–1292), known as Doctor Mirabilis, was a medieval English Franciscan friar, philosopher, and polymath who is considered one of the earliest European advocates of the scientific method and empiricism.

    His philosophical contributions include:

    • Empirical Science: Bacon emphasized direct observation and controlled experiment as essential correctives to authority and tradition, influencing the addition of optics to the medieval university curriculum. 
    • Major Works: In 1267, he submitted the Opus Majus to Pope Clement IV, a comprehensive encyclopedia covering grammar, logic, mathematics, optics, and moral philosophy. 
    • Scientific Innovations: He was the first European to record the formula for gunpowder and made significant studies in geometrical optics, vision, and refraction, anticipating developments in lenses and spectacles. 
    • Imprisonment: Between 1277 and 1279, Bacon was likely imprisoned or placed under house arrest by his Franciscan superiors due to his interest in astrology, alchemy, and “suspected novelties,” though modern scholars debate the historical accuracy of this event. 
    • Legacy: While deeply rooted in medieval scholasticism and theology, his insistence on experimental science (scientia experimentalis) positions him as a precursor to modern scientific inquiry. 

    However the next Bacon has had the greatest influence on the fundamentals of modern science.

    Francis Bacon (1561–1626) was an English philosopher and statesman widely regarded as the father of empiricism and a foundational figure in the development of the scientific method.  He argued that knowledge should be derived from inductive reasoning and careful observation of nature, rejecting the deductive Aristotelian logic that dominated his era.

    His philosophical contributions include:

    • The Baconian Method: A systematic approach to science emphasizing experimentation, data collection, and the elimination of biases (known as the “Idols”).
    • Key Works: He authored Novum Organum (1620), which outlined his new logical framework, and The Advancement of Learning (1605), advocating for the practical application of science to benefit humanity. 
    • Philosophy of Science: Bacon believed that “knowledge is power,” asserting that scientific inquiry should not only seek truth but also produce tangible improvements in human life. 
    • Legacy: His ideas heavily influenced the founders of the Royal Society and helped usher in the Scientific Revolution, shifting natural philosophy toward empirical and experimental practices. 

    Francis Bacon was a devout Anglican Christian who sought to reconcile his faith with the emerging scientific method.  He believed that studying nature through empirical observation was a way to understand God’s creation and that scientific progress served a spiritual duty to alleviate human suffering. 

    While Bacon argued for keeping theology and natural philosophy in separate spheres to prevent religious dogma from hindering scientific inquiry, he remained critical of atheism.

    Bacon famously stated that “a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men’s minds about to religion,” viewing the increase of knowledge as a fulfillment of biblical prophecy.

    However he was not a biblical creationist in the modern sense. He believed that mixing theological dogma with natural philosophy (science) corrupted both, famously criticizing those who tried to build systems of physics based on Genesis or Job.

    Bacon articulated the metaphor of “Two Books” written by God:

    • The Book of God’s Word (Scripture): Reveals God’s will, moral laws, and the path to salvation. Bacon considered this essential for spiritual truth and believed it should be studied deeply. 
    • The Book of God’s Works (Nature): Reveals God’s power and omnipotence. He argued that studying nature was a religious duty that helped humanity understand the Creator’s greatness. 

    He urged scholars to pursue “endless progress” in both books but warned strictly against “unwisely mingling or confounding” them.

    Of course, I totally disagree his “unwisely mingling” view. There are “Two Books” representing one creation, One Creator. The two books are interwoven by the very nature of the creation. It is all one system created by God and any philosophy that ignores this fact is ultimately doomed to failure.

    However he rightfully is credited with what is nowadays called the Scientific Method: hypothesis, experiment and data collection that may disprove the initial hypothesis. No experimental results can ever prove the hypothesis. If you want proofs, try mathematics, which is a closed artificial universe.

    I have no doubt that this method gave a big start to the Scientific Revolution, which really started with Francis Bacon in the early 1600s. However in all my own experience in university research labs what was actually used were Bayesian Methods.

    Bayesian Methods are statistical techniques that use Bayes’ theorem to update the probability of a hypothesis as more evidence or data becomes available. 

    Instead of treating unknown yet-to-be-determined parameters as fixed, Bayesian analysis interprets probability as a degree of belief, allowing for the incorporation of prior knowledge or subjective beliefs alongside observed data. Bayes’ theorem uses a conditional probability to update the prior knowledge.

    That means that Bayesian methods build on prior knowledge. And that also means prior biases, which is often seen when a parameter is measured over time. The prior measured value is considered with more weight than it should be and so new values are chosen that fall closest to the prior. What results is a progressive creep in the value towards the final accepted value, the true value. This can be seen in the historical measured values for the round-trip speed of light, c.

    Historical measurements of the speed of light, c

    Also in the measurements of the electron charge (e).

    Historical measurements of the electron charge, e

    The bias is not due to the error bounds not overlapping the final correct result but due to weight placed on the priors. So a results that favour a prior is accepted before newer values which may be more accurate. This bias is a feature of a worldview.

    Thomas Bayes (c. 1701–1761) was a Presbyterian minister and a member of the English Nonconformist (Dissenter) religious tradition. While his father was a traditional Presbyterian, scholars describe Bayes’ personal theological beliefs as Unitarian or Arian, indicating he strayed from standard Christian orthodoxy. (That is the same accusation leveled against Isaac Newton, so perhaps there is some doubt there.)

    Bayes mathematical work, specifically Bayes’ theorem, was originally developed to provide a probabilistic defense of Christianity against the skeptical arguments of philosopher David Hume, who had questioned the validity of miracles.

    Bayes published two works during his lifetime: a theological tract titled Divine Benevolence (1731) and a mathematical defense of Isaac Newton’s calculus (1736).

    Barring a miraculous revelation from God, in a dream or vision, most experimental development comes from a long list of prior researchers, scientists who slowly advanced the field — one building on the work of another. This is what the oft quoted expression means.

    “If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.”

    The expression is most famously attributed to Isaac Newton, who used it in a 1675 letter to his rival Robert Hooke. However, the metaphor actually originated in the 12th century with the French philosopher Bernard of Chartres, who described humans as “dwarfs on the shoulders of giants.”

    Isaac Newton (1643–1727) was an English polymath and a central figure in the Scientific Revolution, renowned for his foundational contributions to physics, mathematics, and optics.

    Newton attended Trinity College, Cambridge, ostensibly preparing to become an Anglican minister, but spent his time developing his groundbreaking theories. The years 1665–1666 was a period of intense personal productivity known as his annus mirabilis

    He was a deeply religious Christian whose theological writings vastly outnumbered his scientific works. Newton believed in God the Father as the sole creator and Jesus Christ as His divine Son, but some have claimed he denied their co-equality, rejecting the Trinitarian doctrine.1,2 Don’t be misled by such claims. He was an alchemist too, but he wasn’t a witch. Alchemy at that time was the start of modern chemistry and metallurgy.

    He viewed his scientific discoveries as a means to understand God’s design in nature, believing that the laws of physics revealed the order of a rational Creator. Newton spent decades studying biblical prophecy (particularly Daniel and Revelation) and church history, seeking to restore the “pure” faith of the early apostolic era.

    His major works include Principia Mathematica (1687), which established the laws of motion and universal gravitation, and Opticks (1704), which detailed his experiments on light and color, including the invention of the reflecting telescope (1668). 

    Isaac Newton adapted and popularized the concept to acknowledge that his scientific discoveries built upon the work of predecessors like René Descartes. And this situation has been the norm since Isaac Newton.

    René Descartes (1596–1650) was a French philosopher, mathematician, and scientist widely regarded as the father of modern Western philosophy and a key figure in the Scientific Revolution

    He is most famous for the epistemological foundationalist dictum “I think, therefore I am” (Cogito, ergo sum) and for developing Cartesian dualism, the theory that the mind and body are distinct substances.

    René Descartes was a Roman Catholic who actively sought to align his philosophy with Christian doctrine.  He worked diligently to provide rational proofs for the existence of God, aiming to reconcile the new science with Christian beliefs and avoid conflict with ecclesiastical authorities. 

    He insisted that truths of faith were superior to human reason and separated theological doctrines (like the Trinity) from his rational metaphysics. 

    In works like the Meditations, he offered arguments for God’s existence (such as the trademark and ontological arguments) to establish God as the guarantor of truth and the creator of the universe. 

    His distinction between mind (immaterial soul) and body (material matter) was intended to support the immortality of the soul, a core tenet of Christian theology. 

    Despite his personal devotion, critics accused him of atheism because his mechanistic view of the physical world seemed to exclude God from daily natural processes, leading to the prohibition of his books by the Catholic Church in 1663. 

    Ultimately, Descartes is viewed as a figure who tried to rationalize religion without abandoning it, positioning human reason as a path to understanding God rather than a replacement for faith. 

    That is quite different to the humanist arguments of atheistic human reason without any foundation in God.

    What we now need to understand is that not all science is science. It is not all subject to the Scientific Method even allowing for the human biases and Bayesian inference.

    When an hypothesis cannot be tested because the subject lies in the past for the researcher it cannot be called operational or experimental science.

    One problem that arises here is that the scientists themselves cannot recognise their own biases and proceed as if they are validly testing their assumed hypothesis. Their minds are dominated by their worldview, and that could be based on there being no Creator (atheism), or that the Creator is no longer around (deism) and all universal parameters evolve from their initial conditions.

    In cases where an historical parameter is sought, the science should be called forensic or historical science because no direct evidence of the sought-after parameter is available. As a result proxies are used. But the proxies also cannot be directly tested for what they are assumed to mean.

    For example, when trying to determine historical Earth temperatures tree rings or Oxygen isotope ratios are used as proxies. They need calibration but even the calibrations cannot be unequivocal since no one has a time machine. No past measurement is possible. All are inferred from some measurement done in the present.

    Francis Bacon kept separate his “Two Books”. To keep them separate is a flawed approach, which other Christian apologists have also used. It is very similar to what Hugh Ross (of Reason to Believe ministry) teaches. He speaks of the 66 books of the bible but then there is the 67th book of nature. Ross claims God revealed that to him before he was even a believer in Christ.

    It is a compromise because it does not allow the Creator to work. It assumes that in terms of a literal history in the Genesis account there is error and the language must be reinterpreted to fit in with modern science.

    In Ross’ case he believes in the big bang origin of the universe, and so he squeezes the big bang timeline into the 6 x 24-hour days of Genesis creation. Ross accepts the multi-billion-year ages of the Earth and its rock strata, fitting in long periods for each day of creation. He employs a sequence of progressive creation acts that are intended to correspond to the sequence of events in the Genesis account. But one problem with that is the order. They are out of sequence. As well, his progressive “creation” events are, for all intents and purposes, infinitesimally close to Darwinian evolution of species (which he denies).

    Each flash indicates a conflict in sequence between the biblical account and the big bang evolution story. Note that ‘long-age creationists’, though they deny biological transformism, hold to the identical order of appearance as evolutionists. There are 23 conflicts in total shown here. Credit: Idea from Dr. Russ Humphreys.

    Why is it so difficult for even the men of faith to completely accept the Christian worldview in all its details. Thankfully there have been many who have done so. But even among the believers there have been many who compromised on the scriptures in favour of secular interpretations of the physical sciences. They could not fully integrate into their worldview one big picture for the handiwork of God.

    Footnote:

    1. Some have accused Newton of Arianism, but this is rejected by Pfizenmaier, T.C., Was Isaac Newton an Arian?, Journal of the History of Ideas 68(1):57–80, 1997. See here.
    2. A very detailed defense of Newton’s Trinitarianism is Van Alan Herd, The theology of Sir Isaac Newton, gradworks.umi.com, Doctoral Dissertation, University of Oklahoma, 2008. This documents much evidence, including Newton’s words refuting tritheism and affirming Trinitarian monotheism:

    That to say there is but one God, ye father of all things, excludes not the son & Holy ghost from the Godhead becaus they are virtually conteined & implied in the father. … To apply ye name of God to ye Son or holy ghost as distinct persons from the father makes them not divers Gods from ye Father. … Soe there is divinity in ye father, divinity in ye Son, & divinity in ye holy ghost, & yet they are not thre forces but one force.

    Related Reading

    Free Subscribers

    Subscribe to our Newsletters as a Free Subscriber and be notified by email. Just put your email address in the box at the bottom of your screen.

    You’ll get an email each time we publish a new

    Premium Subscribers

    Subscribe to our Newsletters as a Premium Subscribers at $5 USD/month or $30 USD/year (you choose). Cancel anytime.

    Paid Premium Subscribers will get exclusive access to certain content I publish. That will only cost you a cup of coffee per month.

    Also you’ll be able to download, for free, a PDF of my book Apocalypse Now and also a PDF of my book The Physics of Creation The Creator’s Ultimate Design for Earth.

    You can download them from the link below.

    click for Premium SubscriptionSubmitting form

    This is how you can support my work. I have been publishing this website for 10 years now and up to 2024 I never asked for any support.

    Press the button “Premium” on the front page to find a list of Premium content. Thanks so much to all supporters.

    At a minimum, please join as a Free Subscriber. It’ll cost you nothing. It may also help me beat the shadow banning of some posts.

    Comments Welcome Below

    Rate this:

    #BayesianMethods #BigBang #empiricism #FrancisBacon #historicalScience #IsaacNewton #operationalScience #originOfTheUniverse #ReneDescartes #RogerBacon #ScientificMethod #ScientificRevolution #ThomasBayes
  3. A quotation from C S Lewis

    There are inquiries in which scanty evidence is worth using. We may not be able to get certainty, but we can get probability, and half a loaf is better than no bread.

    C. S. Lewis (1898-1963) English writer, literary scholar, lay theologian [Clive Staples Lewis]
    Essay (1950-10), “Historicism,” The Month, Vol. 4, No. 4 New Series (Vol. 190, No. 998 Old Series)

    More about this quote: wist.info/lewis-cs/45027/

    #quote #quotes #quotation #qotd #cslewis #empiricism #evidence #history #inquiry #investigation #likelihood #probability #speculation #surmise #theory #uncertainty

  4. A quotation from C S Lewis

    There are inquiries in which scanty evidence is worth using. We may not be able to get certainty, but we can get probability, and half a loaf is better than no bread.

    C. S. Lewis (1898-1963) English writer, literary scholar, lay theologian [Clive Staples Lewis]
    Essay (1950-10), “Historicism,” The Month, Vol. 4, No. 4 New Series (Vol. 190, No. 998 Old Series)

    More about this quote: wist.info/lewis-cs/45027/

    #quote #quotes #quotation #qotd #cslewis #empiricism #evidence #history #inquiry #investigation #likelihood #probability #speculation #surmise #theory #uncertainty

  5. “I cannot teach anybody anything. I can only make them think.”*…

    Death of Socrates, Jacques-Louis David (source)

    Benjamin Ross Hoffman puts “the Socratic Method” into context– important, timely context…

    There is a scene in Plato that contains, in miniature, the catastrophe of Athenian public life. Two men meet at a courthouse. One is there to prosecute his own father for the death of a slave. The other is there to be indicted for indecency. [or impiety– see here] The prosecutor, Euthyphro, is certain he understands what decency requires. The accused, Socrates, is not certain of anything, and says so. They talk.

    Euthyphro’s confidence is striking. His own family thinks it is indecent for a son to prosecute his father; Euthyphro insists that true decency demands it, that he understands what the gods require better than his relatives do. Socrates, who is about to be tried for teaching indecency toward the gods, asks Euthyphro to explain what decency actually is, since Euthyphro claims to know, and Socrates will need such knowledge for his own defense.

    Euthyphro’s first answer is: decency is what I am doing right now, prosecuting wrongdoers regardless of kinship. Socrates points out that this is an example, not a definition. There are many decent acts; what makes them all decent?

    Euthyphro tries again: decency is what the gods love. But the gods disagree among themselves, Socrates observes, so by this definition the same act could be both decent and indecent. Euthyphro refines: decency is what all the gods love. And here Socrates asks a question Euthyphro cannot answer: do the gods love decent things because they are decent, or are things decent because the gods love them?

    If decent things are decent because the gods love them, then decency is arbitrary, a matter of divine whim. Socrates is too polite to say so, but the implication is: if decency is defined by the arbitrary whim of our betters, who are you to prosecute your father?

    If the gods love decent things because they are decent, then however we know this, we already know the standard for decency ourselves and can cut out the middleman. But then Euthyphro should be able to explain the standard. He can’t.

    Euthyphro tries a few more times, suggesting that decency is a kind of service to the gods, a kind of trade with the gods. Each time Socrates gently follows the definition to its consequences, and each time it collapses. Eventually Euthyphro leaves, saying he is in a hurry. Socrates’ last words are a lament: you have abandoned me without the understanding I needed for my own defense.

    This is usually read as a proto-academic dialogue about definitions. It is a scene from a civilization in crisis. A man is about to use the legal system to destroy his own father on the basis of a concept he cannot define, in a courthouse where another man is about to be destroyed by the same concept. And the man who cannot define it is not unusual. He is representative.

    The indecency for which Socrates was being prosecuted seems to have consisted of asking just the sort of questions Socrates posed to Euthyphro…

    [Hoffman sketches the culture and politics of Athens in the late fifth century, the role of the Sophists, and the (radical) role that Socrates played…]

    … Plato also responded to his beloved mentor’s death by founding the Academy, a great house in Athens where philosophical reasoning was taught methodically. We still have our Academics.

    Agnes Callard, in her recent book Open Socrates, wants Socrates to be timeless. She strips out the historical situation, strips out the aliveness that preceded the method, and ends up defending a method that’s obviously inapplicable in many of the cases where she claims it applies. Aristarchus did not need his assumptions questioned at random. He needed someone who could ask probing questions about his actual problem, from a perspective that didn’t share his assumptions about what was and wasn’t possible.

    Zvi Mowshowitz, in his review of Callard’s book (part 1, part 2), argues at considerable length that the decontextualized version is bad. He is right. Cached beliefs are usually fine. Destabilizing them is usually harmful. Most people do not want to spend their lives in Socratic questioning, and they are right.

    But Zvi has written a long polemic in two installments on the winning side of an incredibly lame debate about whether we should anxiously doubt ourselves all the time, responding to Callard’s decontextualized Socrates, not the real one. The real one did not devise a method and then apply it. He had a quality, something the oracle reached for the language of the tragedians to describe. And what was memorialized as a “method” was what happened when that quality met a city where every other participant in public life had stopped being alive.

    Socrates invokes timeless considerations like logical coherence, and committing (even provisionally) to specific claims; these are very natural things to try to appeal to when people are being squirmy, dramatic, hard to pin down, and fleeing to abstractions that resist falsification.

    Spinoza, in the Theologico-Political Treatise, similarly resituated the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth in their proper context. The political teachings of the Gospels to turn the other cheek, forgive debts, and render unto Caesar what is due to him, are instructions for people living under a hostile and extractive system of domination. Citizens of a free republic have entirely different duties. They have an affirmative obligation to hold each other accountable, to sue people who have wronged them, to participate in collective self-governance. The teachings are not wrong. They are addressed to a specific situation, and become wrong when mechanically transplanted into an inappropriate context.

    The reason to recover the historical Socrates is not only accuracy about the distant past; it is that by seeing this relevant aspect of the past more clearly, we might see more clearly what we are up against now.

    Socratic cross-examination requires an interlocutor who at least would feel ashamed not to put on a show of accountability. The people Socrates questioned were performing wisdom, but they were performing it because the culture still demanded that leaders seem accountable. They would sit for the examination, because refusing would be disgraceful, like breaking formation in a hoplite phalanx. Their scripts collapsed because the scripts were designed to look like real accountability, and real accountability is what Socrates brought.

    There is a useful framework for understanding how public discourse degrades, which distinguishes between guilt, shame, and depravity. A guilty person has violated a norm and intends to repair the breach by owning up and making amends. An ashamed person intends to conceal the violation, which means deflecting investigation. A depraved person has generalized the intent to conceal into a coalitional strategy: I will cover for you if you cover for me, and together we will derail any investigation that threatens either of us.

    The leaders Socrates questioned were, at worst, ashamed. They had taken on roles they couldn’t account for, and they wanted to hide that fact, but they still felt the force of the demand for accountability. When Socrates pressed them, they squirmed, they went in circles, they eventually fled. But they engaged. They felt they had to engage. The culture of Athens, even in its degraded state, still held that a man who refused to give an account of his claims was disgraced.

    Depravity is a further stage, and Sartre described it precisely in his book Anti-Semite and Jew:

    Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.

    The depraved person does not perform accountability. He plays with the forms of accountability to exhaust and humiliate the person who still takes them seriously. He is not running a script that is trying to pass as a perspective, collapsing only under the kind of questioning we still call Socratic. He is amusing himself at the expense of the questioner. Cross-examination does not expose him, because he was never trying to seem consistent. He was trying to demonstrate that consistency is for suckers. The Socratic method will not help him.

    The Socratic method, if we can rightly call it that, was forged by the pressures confronted by a living mind in a city of the ashamed, people who still cared enough about accountability to fake it. It has nothing to say to the depraved themselves, who have dispensed with the pretense, though in a transitional period might expose them to the judgment of the naïve.

    But the quality that preceded the method is something else.

    What the oracle recognized in Socrates was not the ability to cross-examine. It was something closer to what it recognized in Euripides: the capacity to be present to what is happening, to see the person in front of you rather than the drama you are supposed to enact with them, to respond to the situation rather than to your script about the situation. To be alive.

    We do not need a new method. Methods are what you formalize after you understand the problem, and we are not there yet. What might still help us is the quality that precedes method: the willingness to see what is in front of us, to say the obvious thing that everyone embedded in the performance is too scripted to see, and to keep reaching out to others even when the response is usually not even embarrassment but indifference, not even a failed defense but a smirk.

    The oracle didn’t say Socrates had the best method. It said he was the wisest man, in a society oriented against wisdom. The “method” was just how aliveness was memorialized by a city that still cared enough to be ashamed of being dead.

    The question for us is what aliveness looks like in a city beyond shame…

    Eminently worth reading in full.

    The Socratic Method and the importance of recognizing and responding to the times in which we live: “Socrates is Mortal

    See also: “The real reason Socrates was given the death sentence– humiliating powerful people was not a key to success

    Apposite: “What Separates The Great From The Petty In History” (“embracing the relentless ally of reality makes all the difference”)

    * Socrates

    ###

    As we inhabit our moment, we might send thoughtful birthday greetings to David Hume; he was born on this date in 1711. A philosopher, historian, economist, and essayist, he developed a highly-influential system of empiricismphilosophical scepticism, and metaphysical naturalism.

    Hume strove to create a naturalistic science of man that examined the psychological basis of human nature. Hume followed John Locke in rejecting the existence of innate ideas, concluding that all human knowledge derives solely from experience; this places him amongst such empiricists as Francis BaconThomas Hobbes, Locke, and George Berkeley.

    Hume argued that inductive reasoning and belief in causality cannot be justified empirically; instead, they result from custom and mental habit. People never actually perceive that one event causes another but experience only the “constant conjunction” of events. This problem of induction means that to draw any causal inferences from past experience, it is necessary to presuppose that the future will resemble the past; this metaphysical presupposition cannot itself be grounded in prior experience.

    An opponent of philosophical rationalists, Hume held that passions rather than reason govern human behaviour, proclaiming that “Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions.” Hume was also a sentimentalist who held that ethics are based on emotion or sentiment rather than abstract moral principle. He maintained an early commitment to naturalistic explanations of moral phenomena and is usually accepted by historians of European philosophy to have first clearly expounded the is–ought problem, or the idea that a statement of fact alone can never give rise to a normative conclusion of what ought to be done.

    Hume denied that people have an actual conception of the self, positing that they experience only a bundle of sensations and that the self is nothing more than this bundle of perceptions connected by an association of ideas. Hume’s compatibilist theory of free will takes causal determinism as fully compatible with human freedom. His philosophy of religion, including his rejection of miracles and critique of the argument from design, was especially controversial. Hume left a legacy that affected utilitarianism, logical positivism, the philosophy of science, early analytic philosophycognitive sciencetheology and many other fields and thinkers. Immanuel Kant credited Hume as the inspiration that had awakened him from his “dogmatic slumbers.”

    – source

    Apropos the piece featured above, see Peter Kreeft‘s Socrates Meets Hume- The Father of Philosophy Meets
    The Father of Modern Skepticism
    (“A Socratic Examination of [Hume’s] An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding“)

    Portrait of David Hume by Allan Ramsay, 1766 (source) #Athens #culture #DavidHume #empiricism #history #Kant #philosophy #politics #scepticism #Socrates #SocraticMethod
  6. I saw this on Mastodon and almost had a stroke.

    @davidgerard wrote:

    “Most of the AI coding claims are conveniently nondisprovable. What studies there are show it not helping coding at all, or making it worse

    But SO MANY LOUD ANECDOTES! Trust me my friend, I am the most efficient coder in the land now. No, you can’t see it. No, I didn’t measure. But if you don’t believe me, you are clearly a fool.

    These guys had one good experience with the bot, they got one-shotted, and now if you say “perhaps the bot is not all that” they act like you’re trying to take their cocaine away.”

    First, the term is falsifiable, and proving propositions about algorithms (i.e., code) is part of what I do for a living. Mathematically human-written code and AI-written code can be tested, which means you can falsify propositions about them. You would test them the same way.

    There is no intrinsic mathematical distinction between code written by a person and code produced by an AI system. In both cases, the result is a formal program made of logic and structure. In principle, the same testing techniques can be applied to each. If it were really nondisprovable, you could not test to see what is generated by a human and what is generated by AI. But you can test it. Studies have found that AI-generated code tends to exhibit a higher frequency of certain types of defects. So, reviewers and testers know what logic flaws and security weaknesses to look for. This would not be the case if it were nondisprovable.

    You can study this from datasets where the source of the code is known. You can use open-source pull requests identified as AI-assisted versus those written without such tools. You then evaluate both groups using the same industry-standard analysis tools: static analyzers, complexity metrics, security scanners, and defect classification systems. These tools flag bugs, vulnerabilities, performance issues, and maintainability concerns. They do so in a consistent way across samples.

    A widely cited analysis of 470 real pull requests reported that AI-generated contributions contained roughly 1.7 times as many issues on average as human-written ones. The difference included a higher number of critical and major defects. It also included more logic and security-related problems. Because these findings rely on standard measurement tools — counting defects, grading severity, and comparing issue rates — the results are grounded in observable data. Again, I am making a point here. It’s testable and therefore disproveable.

    This is a good paper that goes into it:

    In this paper, we present a large-scale comparison of code authored by human developers and three state-of-the-art LLMs, i.e., ChatGPT, DeepSeek-Coder, and Qwen-Coder, on multiple dimensions of software quality: code defects, security vulnerabilities, and structural complexity. Our evaluation spans over 500k code samples in two widely used languages, Python and Java, classifying defects via Orthogonal Defect Classification and security vulnerabilities using the Common Weakness Enumeration. We find that AI-generated code is generally simpler and more repetitive, yet more prone to unused constructs and hardcoded debugging, while human-written code exhibits greater structural complexity and a higher concentration of maintainability issues. Notably, AI-generated code also contains more high-risk security vulnerabilities. These findings highlight the distinct defect profiles of AI- and human-authored code and underscore the need for specialized quality assurance practices in AI-assisted programming.

    https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.21634

    Something I’ve started to notice about a lot of the content on social media platforms is that most of the posts people are liking, sharing, and memetically mutating—and then spreading virally—usually don’t include any citations, sources, or receipts. It’s often just some out-of-context screenshot with no reference link or actual sources.

    A lot of the anti-AI content is not genuine critique. It’s often misinformation, but people who hate AI don’t question it or ask for sources because it aligns with their biases. The propaganda on social media has gotten so bad that anything other than heavily curated and vetted feeds is pretty much useless, and it’s filled with all sorts of memetic contagions with nasty hooks that are optimized for you algorithmically. I am at the point where I will disregard anything that is not followed up with a source. Period. It is all optimized to persuade, coerce, or piss you off. I am only writing about this because this I’m actually able to contribute genuine information about the topic.

    That they said symbolic propositions written by AI agents (i.e., code) are non-disprovable because they were written by AI boggles my mind. It’s like saying that an article written in English by AI is not English because AI generated it. It might be a bad piece of text, but it’s syntactically, semantically, and grammatically English.

    Basically, any string of data can be represented in a base-2 system, where it can be interpreted as bits (0s and 1s). Those bits can be used as the basis for symbolic reasoning. In formal propositional logic, a proposition is a sequence of symbols constructed according to strict syntax rules (atomic variables plus logical connectives). Under a given semantics, it is assigned exactly one truth value (true or false) in a two-valued logic system.

    They are essentially saying that code written by AI is not binary, isn’t symbolically logical at all, and cannot be evaluated as true or false by implying it is nondisproveable. At the lowest level, compiled code consists of binary machine instructions that a processor executes. At higher levels, source code is written in symbolic syntax that humans and tools use to express logic and structure. You can also translate parts of code into formal logic expressions. For example, conditions and assertions in a program can be modeled as Boolean formulas. Tools like SAT/SMT solvers or symbolic execution engines check those formulas for satisfiability or correctness. It blows my mind how confidently people talk about things they do not understand.

    Furthermore that they don’t realize the projection is wild to me.

    @davidgerard wrote:

    “But SO MANY LOUD ANECDOTES! Trust me my friend, I am the most efficient coder in the land now. No, you can’t see it. No, I didn’t measure. But if you don’t believe me, you are clearly a fool.”

    They are presenting a story—i.e., saying that the studies are not disprovable—and accusing computer scientists of using anecdotal evidence without actually providing evidence to support this, while expecting people to take it prima facie. You’re doing what you are accusing others of doing.


    It comes down to this: they feel that people ought not to use AI, so they are tacitly committed to a future in which people do not use AI. For example, a major argument against AI is the damage it is doing to resources, which is driving up the prices of computer components, as well as the ecological harm it causes. They feel justified in lying and misinforming others if it achieves the outcome they want—people not using AI because it is bad for the environment. That is a very strong point, but most people don’t care about that, which is why they lie about things people would care about.

    It’s corrupt. And what’s really scary is that people don’t recognize when they are part of corruption or a corrupt conspiracy to misinform. Well, they recognize it when they see the other side doing it, that is. No one is more dangerous than people who feel righteous in what they are doing.

  7. I saw this on Mastodon and almost had a stroke.

    @davidgerard wrote:

    “Most of the AI coding claims are conveniently nondisprovable. What studies there are show it not helping coding at all, or making it worse

    But SO MANY LOUD ANECDOTES! Trust me my friend, I am the most efficient coder in the land now. No, you can’t see it. No, I didn’t measure. But if you don’t believe me, you are clearly a fool.

    These guys had one good experience with the bot, they got one-shotted, and now if you say “perhaps the bot is not all that” they act like you’re trying to take their cocaine away.”

    First, the term is falsifiable, and proving propositions about algorithms (i.e., code) is part of what I do for a living. Mathematically human-written code and AI-written code can be tested, which means you can falsify propositions about them. You would test them the same way.

    There is no intrinsic mathematical distinction between code written by a person and code produced by an AI system. In both cases, the result is a formal program made of logic and structure. In principle, the same testing techniques can be applied to each. If it were really nondisprovable, you could not test to see what is generated by a human and what is generated by AI. But you can test it. Studies have found that AI-generated code tends to exhibit a higher frequency of certain types of defects. So, reviewers and testers know what logic flaws and security weaknesses to look for. This would not be the case if it were nondisprovable.

    You can study this from datasets where the source of the code is known. You can use open-source pull requests identified as AI-assisted versus those written without such tools. You then evaluate both groups using the same industry-standard analysis tools: static analyzers, complexity metrics, security scanners, and defect classification systems. These tools flag bugs, vulnerabilities, performance issues, and maintainability concerns. They do so in a consistent way across samples.

    A widely cited analysis of 470 real pull requests reported that AI-generated contributions contained roughly 1.7 times as many issues on average as human-written ones. The difference included a higher number of critical and major defects. It also included more logic and security-related problems. Because these findings rely on standard measurement tools — counting defects, grading severity, and comparing issue rates — the results are grounded in observable data. Again, I am making a point here. It’s testable and therefore disproveable.

    This is a good paper that goes into it:

    In this paper, we present a large-scale comparison of code authored by human developers and three state-of-the-art LLMs, i.e., ChatGPT, DeepSeek-Coder, and Qwen-Coder, on multiple dimensions of software quality: code defects, security vulnerabilities, and structural complexity. Our evaluation spans over 500k code samples in two widely used languages, Python and Java, classifying defects via Orthogonal Defect Classification and security vulnerabilities using the Common Weakness Enumeration. We find that AI-generated code is generally simpler and more repetitive, yet more prone to unused constructs and hardcoded debugging, while human-written code exhibits greater structural complexity and a higher concentration of maintainability issues. Notably, AI-generated code also contains more high-risk security vulnerabilities. These findings highlight the distinct defect profiles of AI- and human-authored code and underscore the need for specialized quality assurance practices in AI-assisted programming.

    https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.21634

    The big problem in discussions about AI in programming is the either-or thinking, when it’s not about using it everywhere or banning it entirely. Tools like AI have specific strengths and weaknesses. Saying ‘never’ or ‘always’ oversimplifies the issue and turns the narrative into propaganda that creates moral panic or shills AI. It’s a bit like saying you shouldn’t use a hammer just because it’s not good for brushing your teeth.

    AI tends to produce code that’s simple, often a bit repetitive, and very verbose. It’s usually pretty easy to read and tweak. This helps with long-term maintenance. But AI doesn’t reason about code the way an experienced developer does. It makes mistakes that a human wouldn’t, potentially introducing security flaws. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t use for where it works well, which is not everywhere.

    AI works well for certain tasks, especially when the scope is narrow and the risk is low. Examples include generating boilerplate code, internal utilities, or prototypes. In these cases, the tradeoff is manageable. However, it’s not suitable for critical code like kernels, operating systems, compilers, or cryptographic libraries. A small mistake memory safety or privilege separation can lead to major failures. Problems with synchronization, pointer management, or access control can cause major problems, too.

    Other areas where AI should not be used include memory allocation handling, scheduling, process isolation, or device drivers. A lot of that depends on implicit assumptions in the system’s architecture. Generative models don’t grasp these nuances. Instead of carefully considering the design, AI tends to replicate code patterns that seem statistically likely, doing so without understanding the purpose behind them.

    Yes, I’m aware that Microsoft is using AI to write code everywhere I said it should not be used. That is the problem. However, political pundits, lobbyists, and anti-tech talking heads are discussing something they have no understanding of and aren’t specifying what the problem actually is. This means they can’t possibly lead grassroots initiatives into actual laws that specify where AI should not be used, which is why we have this weird astroturfing bullshit.

    They’re taking advantage of the reaction to Microsoft using AI-generated code where it shouldn’t be used to argue that AI shouldn’t be used anywhere at all in any generative context. AI is useful for tasks like writing documentation, generating tests, suggesting code improvements, or brainstorming alternative approaches. These ideas should then be thoroughly vetted by human developers.

    Something I’ve started to notice about a lot of the content on social media platforms is that most of the posts people are liking, sharing, and memetically mutating—and then spreading virally—usually don’t include any citations, sources, or receipts. It’s often just some out-of-context screenshot with no reference link or actual sources.

    A lot of the anti-AI content is not genuine critique. It’s often misinformation, but people who hate AI don’t question it or ask for sources because it aligns with their biases. The propaganda on social media has gotten so bad that anything other than heavily curated and vetted feeds is pretty much useless, and it’s filled with all sorts of memetic contagions with nasty hooks that are optimized for you algorithmically. I am at the point where I will disregard anything that is not followed up with a source. Period. It is all optimized to persuade, coerce, or piss you off. I am only writing about this because this I’m actually able to contribute genuine information about the topic.

    That they said symbolic propositions written by AI agents (i.e., code) are non-disprovable because they were written by AI boggles my mind. It’s like saying that an article written in English by AI is not English because AI generated it. It might be a bad piece of text, but it’s syntactically, semantically, and grammatically English.

    Basically, any string of data can be represented in a base-2 system, where it can be interpreted as bits (0s and 1s). Those bits can be used as the basis for symbolic reasoning. In formal propositional logic, a proposition is a sequence of symbols constructed according to strict syntax rules (atomic variables plus logical connectives). Under a given semantics, it is assigned exactly one truth value (true or false) in a two-valued logic system.

    They are essentially saying that code written by AI is not binary, isn’t symbolically logical at all, and cannot be evaluated as true or false by implying it is nondisproveable. At the lowest level, compiled code consists of binary machine instructions that a processor executes. At higher levels, source code is written in symbolic syntax that humans and tools use to express logic and structure. You can also translate parts of code into formal logic expressions. For example, conditions and assertions in a program can be modeled as Boolean formulas. Tools like SAT/SMT solvers or symbolic execution engines check those formulas for satisfiability or correctness. It blows my mind how confidently people talk about things they do not understand.

    Furthermore that they don’t realize the projection is wild to me.

    @davidgerard wrote:

    “But SO MANY LOUD ANECDOTES! Trust me my friend, I am the most efficient coder in the land now. No, you can’t see it. No, I didn’t measure. But if you don’t believe me, you are clearly a fool.”

    They are presenting a story—i.e., saying that the studies are not disprovable—and accusing computer scientists of using anecdotal evidence without actually providing evidence to support this, while expecting people to take it prima facie. You’re doing what you are accusing others of doing.

    It comes down to this: they feel that people ought not to use AI, so they are tacitly committed to a future in which people do not use AI. For example, a major argument against AI is the damage it is doing to resources, which is driving up the prices of computer components, as well as the ecological harm it causes. They feel justified in lying and misinforming others if it achieves the outcome they want—people not using AI because it is bad for the environment. That is a very strong point, but most people don’t care about that, which is why they lie about things people would care about.

    It’s corrupt. And what’s really scary is that people don’t recognize when they are part of corruption or a corrupt conspiracy to misinform. Well, they recognize it when they see the other side doing it, that is. No one is more dangerous than people who feel righteous in what they are doing.

    It’s wild to me that the idea that if you cannot persuade someone, it is okay to bully, coerce, harass them, or spread misinformation to get what you want—because your side is right—has become so normalized on the Internet that people can’t see why it is problematic.

    That people think it is okay to hurt others to get them to agree is the most disturbing part of all of this. People have become so hateful. That is a large reason why I don’t interact with people on social media, really consume things from social media, or respond on social media and am writing a blog post about it instead of engaging with who prompted it.

  8. Scrum Isn’t a Belief System—It’s a Learning System - Scrum.org Blog (Steven Deneir)

    That’s it.
    Empiricism means:
    You’ve seen something happen or you’ve done something, and
    You’ve learned from it.

    scrum.org/resources/blog/scrum

    #scrum #agile #scrumMaster #Empiricism #scrumdotorg

  9. Scrum Isn’t a Belief System—It’s a Learning System - Scrum.org Blog (Steven Deneir)

    That’s it.
    Empiricism means:
    You’ve seen something happen or you’ve done something, and
    You’ve learned from it.

    scrum.org/resources/blog/scrum

    #scrum #agile #scrumMaster #Empiricism #scrumdotorg


  10. I did, against all odds, manage to get some work done today. We have confirmed you can't scan someone with braces on an MRI no matter how much they claim it's only a little metal, but bridges and retainers and everything else we've got in our dataset are surprisingly ok. #empiricism
    😂


  11. I did, against all odds, manage to get some work done today. We have confirmed you can't scan someone with braces on an MRI no matter how much they claim it's only a little metal, but bridges and retainers and everything else we've got in our dataset are surprisingly ok. #empiricism
    😂

  12. How many seminal ideas do you know that gave birth to Agile Software Development?

    How many consequential contributions do you know that advanced Agile effectiveness, understanding and everyday practice?

    Test your knowledge and compare your list here => bit.ly/AgileTimeMachine

    Get also a sense of its original essence and ethos.

    #Agile #History #WaysOfWorking #Agility #Mastery
    #Empiricism #Collaboration #SharedResponsibility

  13. How many seminal ideas do you know that gave birth to Agile Software Development?

    How many consequential contributions do you know that advanced Agile effectiveness, understanding and everyday practice?

    Test your knowledge and compare your list here => bit.ly/AgileTimeMachine

    Get also a sense of its original essence and ethos.

    #Agile #History #WaysOfWorking #Agility #Mastery
    #Empiricism #Collaboration #SharedResponsibility

  14. With this Sadler's Lectures podcast episode, we finish up the series on David Hume's Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. There are now podcast episodes covering every key idea, distinction, & argument in that text

    soundcloud.com/gregorybsadler/
    #Podcast #Hume #Philosophy #Enquiry #Empiricism #Skepticism

  15. With this Sadler's Lectures podcast episode, we finish up the series on David Hume's Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. There are now podcast episodes covering every key idea, distinction, & argument in that text

    soundcloud.com/gregorybsadler/
    #Podcast #Hume #Philosophy #Enquiry #Empiricism #Skepticism

  16. Looking for resources on David Hume, particularly on the Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding? Here's my playlist with 37 videos in it so far. Talks, course lectures, and shorter core concept videos

    youtube.com/playlist?list=PL4g
    #Hume #Philosophy #Videos #Resources #Empiricism #Skepticism

  17. Looking for resources on David Hume, particularly on the Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding? Here's my playlist with 37 videos in it so far. Talks, course lectures, and shorter core concept videos

    youtube.com/playlist?list=PL4g
    #Hume #Philosophy #Videos #Resources #Empiricism #Skepticism

  18. Here is the last of the core concept videos on David Hume's Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. I have now published videos covering the entirety of that work, examining each key idea, argument, explanation or distinction!

    youtu.be/uFgq-SE2oFM
    #Video #Hume #Philosophy #Empiricism #Skepticism #MoralPhilosophy #HumanNature

  19. Here is the last of the core concept videos on David Hume's Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. I have now published videos covering the entirety of that work, examining each key idea, argument, explanation or distinction!

    youtu.be/uFgq-SE2oFM
    #Video #Hume #Philosophy #Empiricism #Skepticism #MoralPhilosophy #HumanNature

  20. Back when I produced core concept videos for my students on David Hume's Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, I skipped over section 1. I've started shooting videos filling in that gap. Here's the first of those!

    youtu.be/CIYHlSCv8U8
    #Video #Hume #Philosophy #Empiricism #Skepticism #Moral #Rigor

  21. Back when I produced core concept videos for my students on David Hume's Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, I skipped over section 1. I've started shooting videos filling in that gap. Here's the first of those!

    youtu.be/CIYHlSCv8U8
    #Video #Hume #Philosophy #Empiricism #Skepticism #Moral #Rigor

  22. Theme One Program • Motivation 1
    inquiryintoinquiry.com/2024/06

    The main idea behind the Theme One program is the efficient use of graph‑theoretic data structures for the tasks of “learning” and “reasoning”.

    I am thinking of “learning” in the sense of learning about an environment, in essence, gaining information about the nature of an environment and being able to apply the information acquired to a specific purpose.

    Under the heading of “reasoning” I am simply lumping together all the ordinary sorts of practical activities which would probably occur to most people under that name.

    There is a natural relation between the tasks. Learning the character of an environment leads to the recognition of laws which govern the environment and making full use of that recognition requires the ability to reason logically about those laws in abstract terms.

    Resources —

    Theme One Program • Overview
    oeis.org/wiki/Theme_One_Progra

    Theme One Program • Exposition
    oeis.org/wiki/Theme_One_Progra

    Theme One Program • User Guide
    academia.edu/5211369/Theme_One

    Survey of Theme One Program
    inquiryintoinquiry.com/2024/02

    #ThemeOneProgram #Learning #Reasoning
    #Logic #LogicalGraphs #FormalLanguages
    #Algorithm #DataStructure #GraphTheory
    #Peirce #PragmaticSemioticInformation
    #Empiricism #Rationalism #Pragmatism

  23. Theme One Program • Motivation 1
    inquiryintoinquiry.com/2024/06

    The main idea behind the Theme One program is the efficient use of graph‑theoretic data structures for the tasks of “learning” and “reasoning”.

    I am thinking of “learning” in the sense of learning about an environment, in essence, gaining information about the nature of an environment and being able to apply the information acquired to a specific purpose.

    Under the heading of “reasoning” I am simply lumping together all the ordinary sorts of practical activities which would probably occur to most people under that name.

    There is a natural relation between the tasks. Learning the character of an environment leads to the recognition of laws which govern the environment and making full use of that recognition requires the ability to reason logically about those laws in abstract terms.

    Resources —

    Theme One Program • Overview
    oeis.org/wiki/Theme_One_Progra

    Theme One Program • Exposition
    oeis.org/wiki/Theme_One_Progra

    Theme One Program • User Guide
    academia.edu/5211369/Theme_One

    Survey of Theme One Program
    inquiryintoinquiry.com/2024/02

    #ThemeOneProgram #Learning #Reasoning
    #Logic #LogicalGraphs #FormalLanguages
    #Algorithm #DataStructure #GraphTheory
    #Peirce #PragmaticSemioticInformation
    #Empiricism #Rationalism #Pragmatism