Science with Commonsense

When it seems like a science result is about providing proof for commonsense; this would be bad if it was that we needed proof of commonsense in order to regard or appreciate it. But then, it is good to get some scientifically originated affirmation of sense that should be common: to see the science of the sense.

When the results of a scientific investigation contradicts true commonsense, they may tell us that it is counterintuitive, trying to overlay our doubts with grammar—semantics. But commonsense ought not be conflated with intuition, even if their outcomes might be similar.

So, if a ‘scientific’ result contradicts true commonsense, then, the investigation probably got something wrong, somehow. But then we know that the scientific method, which is a very commonsensical process, is very much involved in the identification of sense that we can make common.

What’s the algorithm behind the behaviour

Algorithms are data processors
If the data is bad: garbage out
If the algorithm is bad: garbage out

Behaviour is the result of an algorithm
It takes in data and information
And produces garbage or wisdom

What’s the algorithm behind the behaviour

Philosophy Versus Statistics in Decision Making

The use of statistical inference/probabilities can, by essence, never lead to truth, no matter how well done. Philosophy, however, when done correctly, necessarily leads to truth.

Even the notion of statistical fact is paradoxical. Because something should not both be fact and statistical.

One summary of the philosophical enterprise whose formalisation has helped humanity greatly is the scientific method. It put a structure to some aspect of the practice of philosophy.

The book title by Sir Isaac Newton, ‘the mathematical principles of natural philosophy,’ hints clearly at the place of mathematics in the world: the pursuit and appreciation of truth — and beauty. The same, obviously, is the object of philosophy.

Experientially, a lot of our reasoning, decision making, and things we’ve come to ‘know’ in general follow from some application of the scientific method — up to a point at least. However, like basically everything in life, it’s ‘garbage in, garbage out’ (GIGO). Hence the criticality of critical reasoning.

Philosophy is fundamental to ‘political’ decision making, for instance utilitarianism, capitalism, feminism, socialism, Rastafarianism etc, and it’s not perfect here because of the GIGO factor. And because these are high level philosophical views whose foundations might themselves be ‘truthly’ flawed.

let’s stop making legislation (that is, absolute decisions) based on statistical/probabilistic inferences alone. Philosophy, true philosophy, fundamentals philosophy, philosophy in the sense of Lao Tzu or Aristotle should be used in some way as an arbiter in this regard.