Author: EarlyThoughts

I do science by day and philosophy by night. My enthusiasm for philosophy arose during my student time, when a took a master's degree in physics and mathematics. The core and foundation of all sciences is the philosophy, like philosophy of nature. The few courses I had with the focus on philosophy was important and interesting, and later I've realised that the basic analytical methods and tools of philosophy is used everywhere. For example: Math is philosophy on quantitative concepts. I like analytical philosophy and try to apply a tidy chain of thoughts (preferably syllogisms) as often as I can, and to be accurate with definitions. In that way I dwell over the different truths one can establish through deduction in philosophy as well as mathematics. I use the same hypothetico-deductive method in my philosophical study of world views, life and reality, as I use in my job as a physicist. The first step is to establish a logically consistent theory (or world view). The second step is compare it with the experiences of mankind to find which of the many possible (consistent) world views that are coherent with our reality. It's like hypothesis testing in physics, where expected observations are deduced from axioms (fundamental assumptions in the theory), and then compared to empirical data to test if the mathematical description (physics theory) gives the same answer/result as the experiment. This is the hypothetico-deductive method, commonly used in nature sciences. Analytical philosophy is my method to study paradigms. I study descriptive laws and normative laws; physics and moral; what is and what ought to be. These are both essential for wisdom. The truth about these things will set you and others free. The way we discover these truths differ: the credibility and authority that teach us "what is" and "what ought" are totally different.

Er fullstendig altruistiske handlinger mulig? Og er altruisme det beste og dydigste?

Den beste gleden man kan ha, er å gjøre andre glad, heter det i et uttrykk. Det er ofte sant, etter min erfaring, men det er ikke nødvendigvis derfor jeg gjør godt mot andre og gleder andre, i hvert fall ikke kun fordi jeg får glede igjen for det. Selv om jeg får glede tilbake, … Continue reading Er fullstendig altruistiske handlinger mulig? Og er altruisme det beste og dydigste? →

Hvordan bygge vennskap – gi og dans

Dette er 2. blogginnlegg i bloggserien “Jakten på kjærligheten” (følg lenken for å se oversikten). Det starter kanskje med et "hei" eller et par fotballspark frem og tilbake. Vennskapet har ofte grobunn i felles interesser og aktiviteter [1]. Et nært og godt vennskap handler om tillit, felles interesser, om gjensidig kjærlighet (vil hverandre godt) og … Continue reading Hvordan bygge vennskap – gi og dans →

Hvorfor blir stadig flere ensomme? Og er det så farlig?

Ensomhet kan være ekstremt vondt og helseskadelig. Ensomhet tærer på helsen like mye som 15 røyk om dagen, sier Eilertsen ved FHI.[1] En annen studie har vist at ensomhet og annen negativ psykisk tilstand akselererer den biologiske aldringsprosessen: ensomme blir raskere gamle.[2, 3] Ensomhet påvirker helsa negativt, både psykisk og fysisk. Stressnivået kan øke, hvilket … Continue reading Hvorfor blir stadig flere ensomme? Og er det så farlig? →

Ensomhet: Hva gjør meg ensom?

Jeg tenker at man føler seg ensom dersom (en av) to relasjonelle behov ikke er dekket: Tilhørighet og nærhet. Følelsen av ensomhet er et varsel på denne mangelen, slik sult varsler om et udekket behov for mat. Vi er skapt til fellesskap og nære relasjoner. Ensomhetsfølelsen er en slags lengsel etter tilhørighet og nærhet. Tilhørighet: … Continue reading Ensomhet: Hva gjør meg ensom? →

7. Laplace argued for it before Sagan, but his extraordinary argument contradicts a fundamental principle of modern science

Coming up in this chapter: "These examples suggest hallucinations arise when the brain gives more weight to its expectations and beliefs about the world than to the sensory evidence it receives, says study author and Yale psychiatrist Philip Corlett." [3]How do we evaluate the credibility of a testimony when witnesses can deceive us or be … Continue reading 7. Laplace argued for it before Sagan, but his extraordinary argument contradicts a fundamental principle of modern science →

6. True detective work: Ordinary claims often require extra strong evidence, because the consequence is dire

In many cases, extra strong evidence is required in order to conclude that an ordinary claim are true. The cold case detective (criminal investigator of old cases) Jim Warner Wallace in California, USA, points out in his book “Cold Case Christianity” that it is poor police work and judgement to accuse a man of murdering … Continue reading 6. True detective work: Ordinary claims often require extra strong evidence, because the consequence is dire →

5. Not “extraordinary claims”, but “risky claims” – because our lives depend on our beliefs: the claims we trust in

In our daily lives we should (morally/normatively speaking) require a confidence level that is according to the risk that we can tolerate. Whatever we value in life is valued by the decisions we make. When a new medicine is tested, the confidence level should be chosen so that we do not (conclude that it is … Continue reading 5. Not “extraordinary claims”, but “risky claims” – because our lives depend on our beliefs: the claims we trust in →

4. Hypothesis testing already has its own standard, implied by the significance level definition

"Like a court case, the sample evidence must exceed the evidentiary standard, which is the significance level, to conclude that an effect exists." Jim Frost, ”Failing to Reject the Null Hypothesis”, statisticsbyJim.com As statistician Jim Frost states, the significance level is the set standard (the requirement) for the strength of the evidence. And since the … Continue reading 4. Hypothesis testing already has its own standard, implied by the significance level definition →

3. Sagan’s standard does not belong in hypothesis testing

Attention: This chapter is quite technical, with statistics and math. If you are not familiar with hypothesis testing, you may read skip this chapter and go to the chapter where I argue for a better standard than Sagan's standard. Which claims should you require stronger evidence to believe in? What is the level of confidence … Continue reading 3. Sagan’s standard does not belong in hypothesis testing →

1. “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” – a confirmation bias

Carl Sagan’s standard states that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" to believe in those claims. Sagan's standard is a confirmation bias standard: Confirmation bias is the tendency to search for, recall, interpret and favour information that confirms one's already held beliefs.[1] To require more of some claim than others, is to favour others over some. … Continue reading 1. “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” – a confirmation bias →