[Knight Templar]

[Goober5000]

Originally posted by Blue Lion
I said it one post before you

Whoops, so you did.  Didn't read carefully enough.  Sorry about that.

[Sesquipedalian]

Originally posted by Stealth
It's a GIVEN that it's got 50% of the original... CP, explain what "given" means to them...

I deny that such can be given.  Any attempt to state that the glass is filled to 50% capacity without perfectly accurate measurement thereof produces a non-real account of the situation.  If we are dealing with a non-real account of the situation, then whatever answer one might give has no bearing on the real state of the glass, and can thus be dismissed as irrelevant.

[Goober5000]

Now wait a minute.  *Assume* we have a glass with 50% of its capacity occupied by something, then what do we call it.  It's a hypothetical scenario, not a bloody physics experiment.

[Knight Templar]

Now wait a minute. *Assume* we have a glass with 50% of its capacity occupied by something, then what do we call it. It's a hypothetical scenario, not a bloody physics experiment.

well on the topic of making scientific () combacks, nobody fills there glass to 100% percent of it's capacity/volume, so you are all wrong in assuming that.

[CP5670]

I deny that such can be given.  Any attempt to state that the glass is filled to 50% capacity without perfectly accurate measurement thereof produces a non-real account of the situation.  If we are dealing with a non-real account of the situation, then whatever answer one might give has no bearing on the real state of the glass, and can thus be dismissed as irrelevant.

Come on, anything can be given. We are not interested in a "real state" here, but an approximation to the real state, since it is impossible to get an exact value by direct observation. If you think that anything that is not a perfectly real account is irrelevant, you might as well call all of science irrelevant. But of course, that is all the more reason to get into pure math; you will not find any such "real" and "non-real" junk there, since you decide what is real and what is not.

[Sesquipedalian]

Well, if you want to talk in hypothetics, go ahead.  But that wasn't the question.  The question was whether the glass was half full or half empty.  To fulfill the function you want it to, it has to be reformulated to "Assuming the hypothetical situation that the glass is filled to 50% of its capacity, is it half full or half empty?"  Asking whether the glass is half full or half empty can only be a meaningful question after it is determined that it is in fact filled to 50% capacity.

Originally posted by CP5670

If you think that anything that is not a perfectly real account is irrelevant, you might as well call all of science irrelevant.

*In the interests of logical consistency and intellectual facetiousness, Sesq. first declares "ALL SCIENCE IS IRRELEVANT!"  Then he decides to explicate his position slightly and addend the stipulation "TO THE ASSESSMENT OF PHENOMENAL SITUATIONS!" since scientific laws, describing nature in approximation as they do, can only give us general concepts and principles regarding the ways of nature, whereas the consideration of any particular circumstance is a matter of observation, not application of principle.  Sesq. goes on to consider bringing up Hiedelberg's famous principle, but decides against it, as it wouldn't really add anything further to the argument, anyway.*

Edit: For those wondering about the use of the word phenomenal in the preceeding, click on this.  Meanings a and b are the important ones here.

[Kitsune]

Now now..

Any party-goer knows that the fullness of the glass is not the question.

Now whether or not the KEG is half full or half empty..  Ahh, that's the question.

To drink, or not to drink, that is the question.  Is it nobler in the mind's eye to dance, or to run back before Jeff goes for a refill...  

[Zeronet]

The answer is simple, the glass is both half empty and half full...

[kode]

or maybe, it's just half.
or half liquidated, even

[Razor]

Originally posted by Petrarch of th VBB
Thank you, your holiness. All bow down to Thunder!

Make me!

[CP5670]

Well, if you want to talk in hypothetics, go ahead.  But that wasn't the question.  The question was whether the glass was half full or half empty.  To fulfill the function you want it to, it has to be reformulated to "Assuming the hypothetical situation that the glass is filled to 50% of its capacity, is it half full or half empty?"  Asking whether the glass is half full or half empty can only be a meaningful question after it is determined that it is in fact filled to 50% capacity.

 
That is true, but I think it was dropped because we have all probably heard this question before several times, although it would have been a good idea to include that anyway. (but you do not need to have anything on "hypothetical situations," since it does not have to be a real glass) Your first post was correct, but the others were not.

*In the interests of logical consistency and intellectual facetiousness, Sesq. first declares "ALL SCIENCE IS IRRELEVANT!"  Then he decides to explicate his position slightly and addend the stipulation "TO THE ASSESSMENT OF PHENOMENAL SITUATIONS!" since scientific laws, describing nature in approximation as they do, can only give us general concepts and principles regarding the ways of nature, whereas the consideration of any particular circumstance is a matter of observation, not application of principle.  Sesq. goes on to consider bringing up Hiedelberg's famous principle, but decides against it, as it wouldn't really add anything further to the argument, anyway.*

Alright, so now you are saying that all experimental science is irrelevant; cool deal. The phenomenal situation only attains its meaning in the first place from the theory; without the theory, the "particular circumstances" would not only be disconnected and jumbled up, but would have no meanings in themselves either.  (you must have read Popper's The Logic of Scientific Discovery; this stuff is in there) Come on, I think you know that you messed up this time but you are just dragging this on into absurdity.

[Petrarch of the VBB]

Perhaps his luminescance (sp?) the great Thunnder should have closed it after all, this is getting silly.

[Sesquipedalian]

Originally posted by CP5670

 
That is true ... Your first post was correct, but the others were not.

Make up your mind

Alright, so now you are saying that all experimental science is irrelevant; cool deal. The phenomenal situation only attains its meaning in the first place from the theory; without the theory, the "particular circumstances" would not only be disconnected and jumbled up, but would have no meanings in themselves either.  (you must have read Popper's The Logic of Scientific Discovery; this stuff is in there) Come on, I think you know that you messed up this time but you are just dragging this on into absurdity.

Balderdash!  I don't need any theories regarding the visocity of liquids, gravitation, chemical bonding or whatever else to determine whether the glass is filled to 50% capacity.  I might need some or all of those to predict what would happen if I knocked the glass over, but to simply assess whether the glass is filled to 50% capacity I need reference none of those.  The principles describe (and predict) patterns of change, not states of being.
The relationship between the phenomenal situation and the theory is unidirectional.  The theory doesn't confirm or deny the phenomenal: regardless how "jumbled up" it might be in our minds, the phenomenal is nevertheless just there.  We assess the phenomenal situation before and after the relevant actions are performed, and the results of that observation confirm or deny the theory.  That is the purpose of experimental science, silly fellow!

[Sesquipedalian]

Silence...

[Goober5000]

Sleep deprivation conduces to aphasia.



...silly fellow

[CP5670]

Balderdash!  I don't need any theories regarding the visocity of liquids, gravitation, chemical bonding or whatever else to determine whether the glass is filled to 50% capacity.  I might need some or all of those to predict what would happen if I knocked the glass over, but to simply assess whether the glass is filled to 50% capacity I need reference none of those.  The principles describe (and predict) patterns of change, not states of being.

Of course, the principles can still can be used to predict from certain other events whether or not the glass is half full. You don't need to use them but they can still work. And a state of being is a form of change.

The relationship between the phenomenal situation and the theory is unidirectional.  The theory doesn't confirm or deny the phenomenal: regardless how "jumbled up" it might be in our minds, the phenomenal is nevertheless just there.  We assess the phenomenal situation before and after the relevant actions are performed, and the results of that observation confirm or deny the theory.  That is the purpose of experimental science, silly fellow!

In practice, it is bidirectional; we assign the phenomenal situation a meaning in the first place from yet another theory. (a different one than the theory that arises from the analysis of these particular events) The theory will not change the properties themselves, but it will change any relative quantities in our minds, and the interpretation of the properties is one of those. Also, the theory has the potential to be more accurate than a direct observation (not usually true in practice, but hypothetically possible), because a fully precise direct observation is known to be impossible while no such thing is known to hold for an indirect, theoretical observation.

But forget about that; all this really has nothing to do with what you were saying earlier. You said that any observation that is not absolutely exact is meaningless, so there goes experimental science.

[Sesquipedalian]

Originally posted by CP5670


Of course, the principles can still can be used to predict from certain other events whether or not the glass is half full. You don't need to use them but they can still work. And a state of being is a form of change.

 Not without making some other observation, you can't, whic puts us right back in the same boat.  And change can happen only through temporal extension.  The issue is whether the glass is filled to 50% capacity at a particular moment.  If we want to talk about change, we need to measure it once, and then again later.  But then we aren't asking the same question at all.

In practice, it is bidirectional; we assign the phenomenal situation a meaning in the first place from yet another theory. (a different one than the theory that arises from the analysis of these particular events) The theory will not change the properties themselves, but it will change any relative quantities in our minds, and the interpretation of the properties is one of those.

The actual realm of applicability of the point you raise lies elsewhere.  That our hypotheses inform our choices of what phenomena are relevant to consider in evaluating a theory is something I would certainly not dispute (I believe I brought up the same in an argument of ours many moons ago).  But that is inapplicable here -- the only relevant criteria for the observation have already been determined: whether the glass is filled to 50% capacity.

Wait, but perhaps you are lumping the fundamental axioms of identity and such together with quantum mechnics, optics, general relativity, the rules governing viscosity, and other theories of that type into some sort of general and undefined blob called "theory." Then your comment about bi-directionality could perhaps be considered true in this case, but to use the word "theory" in this way would be such a debasement of the word as to render it merely a synomym for "mental involvment," no longer meaning theory any more at all, so surely you can't mean that.

Also, the theory has the potential to be more accurate than a direct observation (not usually true in practice, but hypothetically possible), because a fully precise direct observation is known to be impossible while no such thing is known to hold for an indirect, theoretical observation.

Not hypothetically possible.  No matter what one would still have to start with observation, and can thus only be as accurate as the observations with which one started.  If one is dealing with purely hypothetic situations, then and only then can one be perfectly accurate, but that brings us back to where we started.

But forget about that; all this really has nothing to do with what you were saying earlier. You said that any observation that is not absolutely exact is meaningless, so there goes experimental science.

 No I didn't.  I said 1) that the question regarding the glass's being half full or half empty was meaningless until it had been shown that it was in fact filled to 50% capacity, and 2) that the scientific laws by which we describe change through time are irrelevant to our assessment of the situation of the glass and its contents.  Go read it again.

[CP5670]

Not without making some other observation, you can't, whic puts us right back in the same boat.  And change can happen only through temporal extension.  The issue is whether the glass is filled to 50% capacity at a particular moment.  If we want to talk about change, we need to measure it once, and then again later.  But then we aren't asking the same question at all.

Exactly, but when did I say anything about not making other observations? I simply said that this direct one you talk of was not necessary. The very fact that we are measuring it once and getting a meaningful result out of it means that there is change right there; remember that we need some control to measure, so we must have seen a similar thing before.

The actual realm of applicability of the point you raise lies elsewhere.  That our hypotheses inform our choices of what phenomena are relevant to consider in evaluating a theory is something I would certainly not dispute (I believe I brought up the same in an argument of ours many moons ago).  But that is inapplicable here -- the only relevant criteria for the observation have already been determined: whether the glass is filled to 50% capacity.

I never said that it was not so; I was talking about the general concept of observation at the elementary particle level, where the theory is just as accurate as any practical observation. Since our theories are far less developed at this larger level than are our observational capabilities, it would usually be more accurate to directly observe in some way, but what I am saying is that this is not true as a general rule. (although why you brought that up here in the first place is beyond me)

Wait, but perhaps you are lumping the fundamental axioms of identity and such together with quantum mechnics, optics, general relativity, the rules governing viscosity, and other theories of that type into some sort of general and undefined blob called "theory." Then your comment about bi-directionality could perhaps be considered true in this case, but to use the word "theory" in this way would be such a debasement of the word as to render it merely a synomym for "mental involvment," no longer meaning theory any more at all, so surely you can't mean that.

That is still a theory; what more than mental involvement and analysis is a theory then? Are you saying that it is some fully tangible thing? Although this is true to some extent, the theory can be interpreted in too many different ways (using different axioms) to call it anything more than an ideal analysis.

Not hypothetically possible.  No matter what one would still have to start with observation, and can thus only be as accurate as the observations with which one started.  If one is dealing with purely hypothetic situations, then and only then can one be perfectly accurate, but that brings us back to where we started.

um, we are talking about this particular observation; all you have to do here is to use an observation that has been done with better precision to theorize about another event that cannot be accurately observed so easily. I did not say that it is possible to get an exact result, but that it is possible to get a more accurate result. Also, anything is hypothetically possible since it is just a hypothesis; that first sentence is messed up.

No I didn't.  I said 1) that the question regarding the glass's being half full or half empty was meaningless until it had been shown that it was in fact filled to 50% capacity, and 2) that the scientific laws by which we describe change through time are irrelevant to our assessment of the situation of the glass and its contents.  Go read it again.

That amounts to the same thing; it was given (or rather, implied, since I think he assumed that you had heard the question before) that the glass was 50% full. Of course, I still think that this given statement should be been explicitly stated there, but this has nothing to do with real/non-real glasses, hypothetical situations or whatever else you brought up; it is a simple logical problem that it is intended to reveal the second assumption, which varies from person to person. And what exactly do you mean by "shown?" The second statement would be correct for an "ideal" thinking machine that only has a one-way link between the knowledge store and the analytic portion, but it does not apply to humans unfortunately.

[Sesquipedalian]

Originally posted by CP5670


Exactly, but when did I say anything about not making other observations? I simply said that this direct one you talk of was not necessary. The very fact that we are measuring it once and getting a meaningful result out of it means that there is change right there; remember that we need some control to measure, so we must have seen a similar thing before.

I did.  I'm not interested in what is happening to the glass, whether liquid is going in or out or anything else you care to imagine.  I care only about whether the thing is filled to 50% capacity at the present moment.  Whatever changes might be happening and whatever rules govern those changes are irrelevant: I care only for whether the glass and its contents are in this state, not how they got that way.

I never said that it was not so; I was talking about the general concept of observation at the elementary particle level, where the theory is just as accurate as any practical observation. Since our theories are far less developed at this larger level than are our observational capabilities, it would usually be more accurate to directly observe in some way, but what I am saying is that this is not true as a general rule. (although why you brought that up here in the first place is beyond me)

I never said you did say so.  I don't think we've been on the same page this whole time.  My entire concern is with the state of the glass at a particular moment.  Changes occuring through time are of no importance, becasue I don't care how the glass was 1 second ago, nor how it will be 1 second from now -- I care only whether at this present instant it is 50% full.  

That is still a theory; what more than mental involvement and analysis is a theory then? Are you saying that it is some fully tangible thing? Although this is true to some extent, the theory can be interpreted in too many different ways (using different axioms) to call it anything more than an ideal analysis.

Theories involve propositions.  Categories of thought do not.  A theory is something like "If I eat this sandwich, I won't be hungry anymore," or "Force equals mass times acceleration."  A category of thought is merely a basic, irreducible mental concept like "quantity," "identity," "causality," "substantiality," etc.  We make propositions using these, and can even make self-referential propositions about them, but in themselves they are basic.

um, we are talking about this particular observation; all you have to do here is to use an observation that has been done with better precision to theorize about another event that cannot be accurately observed so easily. I did not say that it is possible to get an exact result, but that it is possible to get a more accurate result.

We are still left with an inaccurate description of the situation.  As long as we are willing to admit that our description of the glass's state is only an approximation of reality, I have no problem with anything.

Also, anything is hypothetically possible since it is just a hypothesis; that first sentence is messed up.

Touche.

That amounts to the same thing;

No it doesn't.  Experimental science is used to check whether our theories roughly correspond to reality, and in that sense it is very useful.  But it's purpose is to keep theory close to reality.  If we could get perfect measurements we could keep theory perfectly in line (not necessarily true, but in line) with reality, and could also dissolve the basis for my original objection.  But the fact that we cannot get perfect measurements does not negate the meaingfulness of experimental science to its intended purpose -- getting an accurate as possible measurement of the contents of the glass would only be a means to the end, not the end itself.

it was given (or rather, implied, since I think he assumed that you had heard the question before) that the glass was 50% full. Of course, I still think that this given statement should be been explicitly stated there, but this has nothing to do with real/non-real glasses, hypothetical situations or whatever else you brought up;

It has everything to do with them.  If we are making an assumption about the glass and then discussing it, we are no longer talking about the real glass, but about the ideal glass.  We're talking about a hypothetical situation.

it is a simple logical problem that it is intended to reveal the second assumption, which varies from person to person.

I know what it is for, I'm just being a pain in the ass.

And what exactly do you mean by "shown?"

 Demonstrated with complete certitude.

The second statement would be correct for an "ideal" thinking machine that only has a one-way link between the knowledge store and the analytic portion, but it does not apply to humans unfortunately.

That we interpret data through our categories to render them intelligible to our minds I do not dispute.  I don't agree that the theories (i.e. propositional statements, see above) we hold are necessary to the raw processing of the data by our senses, and now that we've distinguished them I'm sure you'll see what I mean in that regard.
But in the entire discussion I have have been precisely unconcerned with how we assume the glass to be, and entirely concerned with how the glass is in itself.

Anyway, now that I've had my fun (see "pain in the ass" comment above), I'll point out the real flaw in all my argument from the beginning, and thus depart:  In all my brouhaha about the real vs. the assumed glass, I was talking nonsense, since there never was a real glass!  The existence of the glass was already a hypothetic, so quibbles about being able to determine its precise fullness never applied -- there was nothing to inaccurately measure.