|
On October 18 2013 19:09 packrat386 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2013 19:08 Tobberoth wrote:On October 18 2013 18:12 packrat386 wrote:On October 18 2013 18:03 Tobberoth wrote:On October 18 2013 17:57 packrat386 wrote:
YES. Thank fucking god icefrog, we might have reached a consensus here, just a little bit further.
I'm not trying to argue that there is somehow a scientific basis for belief in god. I am only trying to argue that you can't say i should prefer the hypothesis that there is not a God simply because of science. Science can't answer that question for you because there isn't an experiment to be done. Yes I can. I have been doing it the whole time. The scientific method has proven itself over and over. We know it leads to progress, we know it's logical. It's not perfect, it might not be able to tell us everything (at least not at this point), but it has massive value. A cornerstone of the method which has lead to all this progress, one of the main reasons this progress is possible, is the idea that the burden of proof is always on the person making a claim, because a claim without basis is just an hypothesis without basis: useless. We have all this to show us that it's better to assume something doesn't exist, than assuming it exist. There's no reason at all to chance stance on this just because you start talking about something which is outside of the material universe. This is why scientists frown on pseudoscience and supernatural bullshit: They have no reason to suddenly change their mind when the scientific method has proven its worth. Remember, the inital argument was burden of proof. The scientific method places the burden of proof squarely on the person with the hypothesis. I have seen no reasoning from you as to why we shouldn't keep this general rule when discussing anything, material universe or not. You should read up on your philosophy of science. There is no cornerstone of science to reject all things which can't be empirically tested. Science doesn't comment on those things which cannot be subjected to experimentation. Does that mean those things should be necessarily rejected? No, it just means that we need to use a different system to talk about them. Take the example of uncountable reals. There is no experiment for me to run, thus science can't give me an answer to the question. edit: Spelling. Also the idea that scientists "frown on" the supernatural is laughable given the amount of religious scientists there are. Science necessarily rejects untestable hypoteses, yes. Awesome, therefore I can reject the hypothesis that there are uncountably many real numbers because there is no way for me to scientifically test it. Glad we had this conversation. edit: In case you might have missed the punchline, there are uncountably many real numbers
Read my edit. There's no hypothesis that there are uncountably many real numbers. There simply are, by our very definition of real numbers.
If you make a real hypothesis in math (not questioning the very definitions math builds on), it still has to be proven mathematically. For example, there's the hypothesis that the length of the hypothenuse is always the square root of the sum of the squared length of the adjecent and the opposite sites of a right side triangle. This can easily be proven in math, in many ways.
|
If it is the case that I can come to conclusions without doing an experiment then you have to accept that there are other forms of knowledge production that exist alongside science (and it some cases create it). Science isn't a hegemonic system that can describe all possible ideas. I was using the word hypothesis because it is commonly used in science, but you could also use the word premise or statement. There are plenty of statements that science can't determine the truth value of, and in those cases you need to look to other systems of knowledge production for the answers. If you reject every premise that cannot be supported by experiment you will end up with far less that you think.
|
On October 18 2013 19:18 packrat386 wrote:
If it is the case that I can come to conclusions without doing an experiment then you have to accept that there are other forms of knowledge production that exist alongside science (and it some cases create it). Science isn't a hegemonic system that can describe all possible ideas. I was using the word hypothesis because it is commonly used in science, but you could also use the word premise or statement. There are plenty of statements that science can't determine the truth value of, and in those cases you need to look to other systems of knowledge production for the answers. If you reject every premise that cannot be supported by experiment you will end up with far less that you think.
If science can't provide the truth value, nothing else can either. How do you see if something is true if you can't test whether or not it's true? At best, you can accept that you don't know.
That there are uncountably many real numbers is only true because we define a concept ourselves which is true by definition. There's no truth to use science or anything else to find there. That doesn't mean it's a different form of knowledge production. The real numbers are just an abstract definition used in actual science.
|
On October 18 2013 19:25 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2013 19:18 packrat386 wrote:
If it is the case that I can come to conclusions without doing an experiment then you have to accept that there are other forms of knowledge production that exist alongside science (and it some cases create it). Science isn't a hegemonic system that can describe all possible ideas. I was using the word hypothesis because it is commonly used in science, but you could also use the word premise or statement. There are plenty of statements that science can't determine the truth value of, and in those cases you need to look to other systems of knowledge production for the answers. If you reject every premise that cannot be supported by experiment you will end up with far less that you think. If science can't provide the truth value, nothing else can either. How do you see if something is true if you can't test whether or not it's true? At best, you can accept that you don't know.
There are more ways to know that things are true than by testing them. I could list to you many truths that I have arrived at using another system of knowledge production (notably formal logic) that I can know to be true and yet never have tested.
That there are uncountably many real numbers is only true because we define a concept ourselves which is true by definition. There's no truth to use science or anything else to find there. That doesn't mean it's a different form of knowledge production. The real numbers are just an abstract definition used in actual science.
You really ought to read some epistemology stuff. If I am arriving at new, true, justified, belief then I am creating new knowledge here, and the way that I am doing it is not through science. Science as an epistemology basically entails the scientific method, but there are other ways that I can come to know things.
|
On October 18 2013 19:39 packrat386 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2013 19:25 Tobberoth wrote:On October 18 2013 19:18 packrat386 wrote:
If it is the case that I can come to conclusions without doing an experiment then you have to accept that there are other forms of knowledge production that exist alongside science (and it some cases create it). Science isn't a hegemonic system that can describe all possible ideas. I was using the word hypothesis because it is commonly used in science, but you could also use the word premise or statement. There are plenty of statements that science can't determine the truth value of, and in those cases you need to look to other systems of knowledge production for the answers. If you reject every premise that cannot be supported by experiment you will end up with far less that you think. If science can't provide the truth value, nothing else can either. How do you see if something is true if you can't test whether or not it's true? At best, you can accept that you don't know. There are more ways to know that things are true than by testing them. I could list to you many truths that I have arrived at using another system of knowledge production (notably formal logic) that I can know to be true and yet never have tested. Show nested quote +
That there are uncountably many real numbers is only true because we define a concept ourselves which is true by definition. There's no truth to use science or anything else to find there. That doesn't mean it's a different form of knowledge production. The real numbers are just an abstract definition used in actual science.
You really ought to read some epistemology stuff. If I am arriving at new, true, justified, belief then I am creating new knowledge here, and the way that I am doing it is not through science. Science as an epistemology basically entails the scientific method, but there are other ways that I can come to know things.
Give me an example. An hypothesis which is completely untestable, completely unfalsifiable, that you came to understand the truth value of using something else than science.
Should be noted that formal logic is in many senses of the word science. For example, Kant called it the science of judgement.
|
On October 18 2013 19:42 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2013 19:39 packrat386 wrote:On October 18 2013 19:25 Tobberoth wrote:On October 18 2013 19:18 packrat386 wrote:
If it is the case that I can come to conclusions without doing an experiment then you have to accept that there are other forms of knowledge production that exist alongside science (and it some cases create it). Science isn't a hegemonic system that can describe all possible ideas. I was using the word hypothesis because it is commonly used in science, but you could also use the word premise or statement. There are plenty of statements that science can't determine the truth value of, and in those cases you need to look to other systems of knowledge production for the answers. If you reject every premise that cannot be supported by experiment you will end up with far less that you think. If science can't provide the truth value, nothing else can either. How do you see if something is true if you can't test whether or not it's true? At best, you can accept that you don't know. There are more ways to know that things are true than by testing them. I could list to you many truths that I have arrived at using another system of knowledge production (notably formal logic) that I can know to be true and yet never have tested.
That there are uncountably many real numbers is only true because we define a concept ourselves which is true by definition. There's no truth to use science or anything else to find there. That doesn't mean it's a different form of knowledge production. The real numbers are just an abstract definition used in actual science.
You really ought to read some epistemology stuff. If I am arriving at new, true, justified, belief then I am creating new knowledge here, and the way that I am doing it is not through science. Science as an epistemology basically entails the scientific method, but there are other ways that I can come to know things. Give me an example. An hypothesis which is completely untestable, completely unfalsifiable, that you came to understand the truth value of using something else than science. Should be noted that formal logic is in many senses of the word science. For example, Kant called it the science of judgement.
Unfalsifiable isn't a necessary condition for my knowledge production to not be science, but this one is untestable.
For any statements A, B, and C: ((~A v ~(B v C)) * C * B)-> A
Written in a way of formatting formal logic but it reads "not A or not (B or C) AND C AND B implies A".
This statement isn't one you can test empircally, since there not any concept of data that could show this to be true or false. However, if I follow the rules of formal logic, I can show that this is the case.
Lastly, Kant was using science in a different meaning. The Scientific Method is based on empiricism, formal logic is not.
|
On October 18 2013 19:58 packrat386 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2013 19:42 Tobberoth wrote:On October 18 2013 19:39 packrat386 wrote:On October 18 2013 19:25 Tobberoth wrote:On October 18 2013 19:18 packrat386 wrote:
If it is the case that I can come to conclusions without doing an experiment then you have to accept that there are other forms of knowledge production that exist alongside science (and it some cases create it). Science isn't a hegemonic system that can describe all possible ideas. I was using the word hypothesis because it is commonly used in science, but you could also use the word premise or statement. There are plenty of statements that science can't determine the truth value of, and in those cases you need to look to other systems of knowledge production for the answers. If you reject every premise that cannot be supported by experiment you will end up with far less that you think. If science can't provide the truth value, nothing else can either. How do you see if something is true if you can't test whether or not it's true? At best, you can accept that you don't know. There are more ways to know that things are true than by testing them. I could list to you many truths that I have arrived at using another system of knowledge production (notably formal logic) that I can know to be true and yet never have tested.
That there are uncountably many real numbers is only true because we define a concept ourselves which is true by definition. There's no truth to use science or anything else to find there. That doesn't mean it's a different form of knowledge production. The real numbers are just an abstract definition used in actual science.
You really ought to read some epistemology stuff. If I am arriving at new, true, justified, belief then I am creating new knowledge here, and the way that I am doing it is not through science. Science as an epistemology basically entails the scientific method, but there are other ways that I can come to know things. Give me an example. An hypothesis which is completely untestable, completely unfalsifiable, that you came to understand the truth value of using something else than science. Should be noted that formal logic is in many senses of the word science. For example, Kant called it the science of judgement. Unfalsifiable isn't a necessary condition for my knowledge production to not be science, but this one is untestable. For any statements A, B, and C: ((~A v ~(B v C)) * C * B)-> A Written in a way of formatting formal logic but it reads "not A or not (B or C) AND C AND B implies A". This statement isn't one you can test empircally, since there not any concept of data that could show this to be true or false. However, if I follow the rules of formal logic, I can show that this is the case. Lastly, Kant was using science in a different meaning. The Scientific Method is based on empiricism, formal logic is not.
Sure you can test it. Take a bunch of statements and see if you can break it. You can't PROVE it emperically, then again, you never can, but you can definitely test it.
Besides, formal science goes in the same bag as what I said about math: It's all about definitions, which is what the "formal" comes from. We define a formal system, then we get knowledge from that system, but it's just abstract concepts, there's no actual truth there outside of the formal system.
|
On October 18 2013 20:09 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2013 19:58 packrat386 wrote:On October 18 2013 19:42 Tobberoth wrote:On October 18 2013 19:39 packrat386 wrote:On October 18 2013 19:25 Tobberoth wrote:On October 18 2013 19:18 packrat386 wrote:
If it is the case that I can come to conclusions without doing an experiment then you have to accept that there are other forms of knowledge production that exist alongside science (and it some cases create it). Science isn't a hegemonic system that can describe all possible ideas. I was using the word hypothesis because it is commonly used in science, but you could also use the word premise or statement. There are plenty of statements that science can't determine the truth value of, and in those cases you need to look to other systems of knowledge production for the answers. If you reject every premise that cannot be supported by experiment you will end up with far less that you think. If science can't provide the truth value, nothing else can either. How do you see if something is true if you can't test whether or not it's true? At best, you can accept that you don't know. There are more ways to know that things are true than by testing them. I could list to you many truths that I have arrived at using another system of knowledge production (notably formal logic) that I can know to be true and yet never have tested.
That there are uncountably many real numbers is only true because we define a concept ourselves which is true by definition. There's no truth to use science or anything else to find there. That doesn't mean it's a different form of knowledge production. The real numbers are just an abstract definition used in actual science.
You really ought to read some epistemology stuff. If I am arriving at new, true, justified, belief then I am creating new knowledge here, and the way that I am doing it is not through science. Science as an epistemology basically entails the scientific method, but there are other ways that I can come to know things. Give me an example. An hypothesis which is completely untestable, completely unfalsifiable, that you came to understand the truth value of using something else than science. Should be noted that formal logic is in many senses of the word science. For example, Kant called it the science of judgement. Unfalsifiable isn't a necessary condition for my knowledge production to not be science, but this one is untestable. For any statements A, B, and C: ((~A v ~(B v C)) * C * B)-> A Written in a way of formatting formal logic but it reads "not A or not (B or C) AND C AND B implies A". This statement isn't one you can test empircally, since there not any concept of data that could show this to be true or false. However, if I follow the rules of formal logic, I can show that this is the case. Lastly, Kant was using science in a different meaning. The Scientific Method is based on empiricism, formal logic is not. Sure you can test it. Take a bunch of statements and see if you can break it. You can't PROVE it emperically, then again, you never can, but you can definitely test it. Besides, formal science goes in the same bag as what I said about math: It's all about definitions, which is what the "formal" comes from. We define a formal system, then we get knowledge from that system, but it's just abstract concepts, there's no actual truth there outside of the formal system.
I knew things that I didn't know before. Yes, I applied principles that I knew earlier to get them, but that doesn't mean that its not a form of knowledge production.
Also, the point is not that I can find and prove things that are untestable, but that I can know things without having to test them. As long as this is true, I can arrive at new knowledge without using the scientific method. Also, even if I can test it with the scientific method, I can't prove it (and therefore *know* it) without using some other system of knowledge.
I hate to pull a farvacola, but you basically just need to read some stuff about epistemology. Science is not the all-encompassing system that you think it is, nor is it particularly natural. Just like formal logic, its a human creation that we use to explore the world within the confines of things that we have already defined.
|
On October 18 2013 20:20 packrat386 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2013 20:09 Tobberoth wrote:On October 18 2013 19:58 packrat386 wrote:On October 18 2013 19:42 Tobberoth wrote:On October 18 2013 19:39 packrat386 wrote:On October 18 2013 19:25 Tobberoth wrote:On October 18 2013 19:18 packrat386 wrote:
If it is the case that I can come to conclusions without doing an experiment then you have to accept that there are other forms of knowledge production that exist alongside science (and it some cases create it). Science isn't a hegemonic system that can describe all possible ideas. I was using the word hypothesis because it is commonly used in science, but you could also use the word premise or statement. There are plenty of statements that science can't determine the truth value of, and in those cases you need to look to other systems of knowledge production for the answers. If you reject every premise that cannot be supported by experiment you will end up with far less that you think. If science can't provide the truth value, nothing else can either. How do you see if something is true if you can't test whether or not it's true? At best, you can accept that you don't know. There are more ways to know that things are true than by testing them. I could list to you many truths that I have arrived at using another system of knowledge production (notably formal logic) that I can know to be true and yet never have tested.
That there are uncountably many real numbers is only true because we define a concept ourselves which is true by definition. There's no truth to use science or anything else to find there. That doesn't mean it's a different form of knowledge production. The real numbers are just an abstract definition used in actual science.
You really ought to read some epistemology stuff. If I am arriving at new, true, justified, belief then I am creating new knowledge here, and the way that I am doing it is not through science. Science as an epistemology basically entails the scientific method, but there are other ways that I can come to know things. Give me an example. An hypothesis which is completely untestable, completely unfalsifiable, that you came to understand the truth value of using something else than science. Should be noted that formal logic is in many senses of the word science. For example, Kant called it the science of judgement. Unfalsifiable isn't a necessary condition for my knowledge production to not be science, but this one is untestable. For any statements A, B, and C: ((~A v ~(B v C)) * C * B)-> A Written in a way of formatting formal logic but it reads "not A or not (B or C) AND C AND B implies A". This statement isn't one you can test empircally, since there not any concept of data that could show this to be true or false. However, if I follow the rules of formal logic, I can show that this is the case. Lastly, Kant was using science in a different meaning. The Scientific Method is based on empiricism, formal logic is not. Sure you can test it. Take a bunch of statements and see if you can break it. You can't PROVE it emperically, then again, you never can, but you can definitely test it. Besides, formal science goes in the same bag as what I said about math: It's all about definitions, which is what the "formal" comes from. We define a formal system, then we get knowledge from that system, but it's just abstract concepts, there's no actual truth there outside of the formal system. I knew things that I didn't know before. Yes, I applied principles that I knew earlier to get them, but that doesn't mean that its not a form of knowledge production. Also, the point is not that I can find and prove things that are untestable, but that I can know things without having to test them. As long as this is true, I can arrive at new knowledge without using the scientific method. Also, even if I can test it with the scientific method, I can't prove it (and therefore *know* it) without using some other system of knowledge. I hate to pull a farvacola, but you basically just need to read some stuff about epistemology. Science is not the all-encompassing system that you think it is, nor is it particularly natural. Just like formal logic, its a human creation that we use to explore the world within the confines of things that we have already defined.
I think you are the one who need to study epistemology since you keep saying science is not the all-encompassing system, while you're picking examples from formal science. Formal science is still science. You are using semantics to make it sound like what you're saying now is supporting your previous argument in the topic, which it does not. The fact that formal science can find proofs without empiricism does not mean it makes sense to believe in anything without basis. You don't believe anything in formal science without basis, you just have a slightly different way to find truth (and it's the only form of science where you can find actual truth since it's all based on our own definitions).
|
On October 18 2013 20:26 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2013 20:20 packrat386 wrote:On October 18 2013 20:09 Tobberoth wrote:On October 18 2013 19:58 packrat386 wrote:On October 18 2013 19:42 Tobberoth wrote:On October 18 2013 19:39 packrat386 wrote:On October 18 2013 19:25 Tobberoth wrote:On October 18 2013 19:18 packrat386 wrote:
If it is the case that I can come to conclusions without doing an experiment then you have to accept that there are other forms of knowledge production that exist alongside science (and it some cases create it). Science isn't a hegemonic system that can describe all possible ideas. I was using the word hypothesis because it is commonly used in science, but you could also use the word premise or statement. There are plenty of statements that science can't determine the truth value of, and in those cases you need to look to other systems of knowledge production for the answers. If you reject every premise that cannot be supported by experiment you will end up with far less that you think. If science can't provide the truth value, nothing else can either. How do you see if something is true if you can't test whether or not it's true? At best, you can accept that you don't know. There are more ways to know that things are true than by testing them. I could list to you many truths that I have arrived at using another system of knowledge production (notably formal logic) that I can know to be true and yet never have tested.
That there are uncountably many real numbers is only true because we define a concept ourselves which is true by definition. There's no truth to use science or anything else to find there. That doesn't mean it's a different form of knowledge production. The real numbers are just an abstract definition used in actual science.
You really ought to read some epistemology stuff. If I am arriving at new, true, justified, belief then I am creating new knowledge here, and the way that I am doing it is not through science. Science as an epistemology basically entails the scientific method, but there are other ways that I can come to know things. Give me an example. An hypothesis which is completely untestable, completely unfalsifiable, that you came to understand the truth value of using something else than science. Should be noted that formal logic is in many senses of the word science. For example, Kant called it the science of judgement. Unfalsifiable isn't a necessary condition for my knowledge production to not be science, but this one is untestable. For any statements A, B, and C: ((~A v ~(B v C)) * C * B)-> A Written in a way of formatting formal logic but it reads "not A or not (B or C) AND C AND B implies A". This statement isn't one you can test empircally, since there not any concept of data that could show this to be true or false. However, if I follow the rules of formal logic, I can show that this is the case. Lastly, Kant was using science in a different meaning. The Scientific Method is based on empiricism, formal logic is not. Sure you can test it. Take a bunch of statements and see if you can break it. You can't PROVE it emperically, then again, you never can, but you can definitely test it. Besides, formal science goes in the same bag as what I said about math: It's all about definitions, which is what the "formal" comes from. We define a formal system, then we get knowledge from that system, but it's just abstract concepts, there's no actual truth there outside of the formal system. I knew things that I didn't know before. Yes, I applied principles that I knew earlier to get them, but that doesn't mean that its not a form of knowledge production. Also, the point is not that I can find and prove things that are untestable, but that I can know things without having to test them. As long as this is true, I can arrive at new knowledge without using the scientific method. Also, even if I can test it with the scientific method, I can't prove it (and therefore *know* it) without using some other system of knowledge. I hate to pull a farvacola, but you basically just need to read some stuff about epistemology. Science is not the all-encompassing system that you think it is, nor is it particularly natural. Just like formal logic, its a human creation that we use to explore the world within the confines of things that we have already defined. I think you are the one who need to study epistemology since you keep saying science is not the all-encompassing system, while you're picking examples from formal science. Formal science is still science. You are using semantics to make it sound like what you're saying now is supporting your previous argument in the topic, which it does not. The fact that formal science can find proofs without empiricism does not mean it makes sense to believe in anything without basis. You don't believe anything in formal science without basis, you just have a slightly different way to find truth (and it's the only form of science where you can find actual truth since it's all based on our own definitions).
Every time I present you with a form of knowledge production your response is "well, that can be science too". Science as defined by the scientific method is empirical study through testing of hypotheses. You can use formal logic or mathematics alongside science, but they are not in and of themselves part of science (note the lack of experiments). If you want to define an ever expanding system and call it science, you can do that, but you have to know that when people say science, they mean empirics.
|
On October 18 2013 20:45 packrat386 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2013 20:26 Tobberoth wrote:On October 18 2013 20:20 packrat386 wrote:On October 18 2013 20:09 Tobberoth wrote:On October 18 2013 19:58 packrat386 wrote:On October 18 2013 19:42 Tobberoth wrote:On October 18 2013 19:39 packrat386 wrote:On October 18 2013 19:25 Tobberoth wrote:On October 18 2013 19:18 packrat386 wrote:
If it is the case that I can come to conclusions without doing an experiment then you have to accept that there are other forms of knowledge production that exist alongside science (and it some cases create it). Science isn't a hegemonic system that can describe all possible ideas. I was using the word hypothesis because it is commonly used in science, but you could also use the word premise or statement. There are plenty of statements that science can't determine the truth value of, and in those cases you need to look to other systems of knowledge production for the answers. If you reject every premise that cannot be supported by experiment you will end up with far less that you think. If science can't provide the truth value, nothing else can either. How do you see if something is true if you can't test whether or not it's true? At best, you can accept that you don't know. There are more ways to know that things are true than by testing them. I could list to you many truths that I have arrived at using another system of knowledge production (notably formal logic) that I can know to be true and yet never have tested.
That there are uncountably many real numbers is only true because we define a concept ourselves which is true by definition. There's no truth to use science or anything else to find there. That doesn't mean it's a different form of knowledge production. The real numbers are just an abstract definition used in actual science.
You really ought to read some epistemology stuff. If I am arriving at new, true, justified, belief then I am creating new knowledge here, and the way that I am doing it is not through science. Science as an epistemology basically entails the scientific method, but there are other ways that I can come to know things. Give me an example. An hypothesis which is completely untestable, completely unfalsifiable, that you came to understand the truth value of using something else than science. Should be noted that formal logic is in many senses of the word science. For example, Kant called it the science of judgement. Unfalsifiable isn't a necessary condition for my knowledge production to not be science, but this one is untestable. For any statements A, B, and C: ((~A v ~(B v C)) * C * B)-> A Written in a way of formatting formal logic but it reads "not A or not (B or C) AND C AND B implies A". This statement isn't one you can test empircally, since there not any concept of data that could show this to be true or false. However, if I follow the rules of formal logic, I can show that this is the case. Lastly, Kant was using science in a different meaning. The Scientific Method is based on empiricism, formal logic is not. Sure you can test it. Take a bunch of statements and see if you can break it. You can't PROVE it emperically, then again, you never can, but you can definitely test it. Besides, formal science goes in the same bag as what I said about math: It's all about definitions, which is what the "formal" comes from. We define a formal system, then we get knowledge from that system, but it's just abstract concepts, there's no actual truth there outside of the formal system. I knew things that I didn't know before. Yes, I applied principles that I knew earlier to get them, but that doesn't mean that its not a form of knowledge production. Also, the point is not that I can find and prove things that are untestable, but that I can know things without having to test them. As long as this is true, I can arrive at new knowledge without using the scientific method. Also, even if I can test it with the scientific method, I can't prove it (and therefore *know* it) without using some other system of knowledge. I hate to pull a farvacola, but you basically just need to read some stuff about epistemology. Science is not the all-encompassing system that you think it is, nor is it particularly natural. Just like formal logic, its a human creation that we use to explore the world within the confines of things that we have already defined. I think you are the one who need to study epistemology since you keep saying science is not the all-encompassing system, while you're picking examples from formal science. Formal science is still science. You are using semantics to make it sound like what you're saying now is supporting your previous argument in the topic, which it does not. The fact that formal science can find proofs without empiricism does not mean it makes sense to believe in anything without basis. You don't believe anything in formal science without basis, you just have a slightly different way to find truth (and it's the only form of science where you can find actual truth since it's all based on our own definitions). Every time I present you with a form of knowledge production your response is "well, that can be science too". Science as defined by the scientific method is empirical study through testing of hypotheses. You can use formal logic or mathematics alongside science, but they are not in and of themselves part of science (note the lack of experiments). If you want to define an ever expanding system and call it science, you can do that, but you have to know that when people say science, they mean empirics.
No. Mathematics and Formal Logic are both part of formal science. That's not something I made up. It IS science. You obviously don't agree on what science mean, but remember, the scientific method does NOT define science.
Here's a definition of science:
"a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences."
Argue semantics if you want, but take it up with the dictionaries.
You got stuck on me saying testable, you missed the context. Just because you don't have to do tests to get a proof in formal logic does not go against what I've been saying, the fact that you can prove it means it's falsifiable, it's possible to do tests on it and it's provable. God is none of those things. The invisible teapots are none of those things. It's just random thoughts which you can learn nothing from. You can speculate, you can come up with new ideas, but you can't get any knowledge. You can't apply science, natural nor formal, to learn anything. You can't get any knowledge because there's no basis. In a formal system, there is a basis. You can test hypotheses out, you can prove them.
Your discussion on formal logic in no way shows that you can get knowledge from God. You can get knowledge from reading the bible, you can get inspiration from stories about god... but those things are material. My core argument stands.
|
On October 18 2013 20:52 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2013 20:45 packrat386 wrote:On October 18 2013 20:26 Tobberoth wrote:On October 18 2013 20:20 packrat386 wrote:On October 18 2013 20:09 Tobberoth wrote:On October 18 2013 19:58 packrat386 wrote:On October 18 2013 19:42 Tobberoth wrote:On October 18 2013 19:39 packrat386 wrote:On October 18 2013 19:25 Tobberoth wrote:On October 18 2013 19:18 packrat386 wrote:
If it is the case that I can come to conclusions without doing an experiment then you have to accept that there are other forms of knowledge production that exist alongside science (and it some cases create it). Science isn't a hegemonic system that can describe all possible ideas. I was using the word hypothesis because it is commonly used in science, but you could also use the word premise or statement. There are plenty of statements that science can't determine the truth value of, and in those cases you need to look to other systems of knowledge production for the answers. If you reject every premise that cannot be supported by experiment you will end up with far less that you think. If science can't provide the truth value, nothing else can either. How do you see if something is true if you can't test whether or not it's true? At best, you can accept that you don't know. There are more ways to know that things are true than by testing them. I could list to you many truths that I have arrived at using another system of knowledge production (notably formal logic) that I can know to be true and yet never have tested.
That there are uncountably many real numbers is only true because we define a concept ourselves which is true by definition. There's no truth to use science or anything else to find there. That doesn't mean it's a different form of knowledge production. The real numbers are just an abstract definition used in actual science.
You really ought to read some epistemology stuff. If I am arriving at new, true, justified, belief then I am creating new knowledge here, and the way that I am doing it is not through science. Science as an epistemology basically entails the scientific method, but there are other ways that I can come to know things. Give me an example. An hypothesis which is completely untestable, completely unfalsifiable, that you came to understand the truth value of using something else than science. Should be noted that formal logic is in many senses of the word science. For example, Kant called it the science of judgement. Unfalsifiable isn't a necessary condition for my knowledge production to not be science, but this one is untestable. For any statements A, B, and C: ((~A v ~(B v C)) * C * B)-> A Written in a way of formatting formal logic but it reads "not A or not (B or C) AND C AND B implies A". This statement isn't one you can test empircally, since there not any concept of data that could show this to be true or false. However, if I follow the rules of formal logic, I can show that this is the case. Lastly, Kant was using science in a different meaning. The Scientific Method is based on empiricism, formal logic is not. Sure you can test it. Take a bunch of statements and see if you can break it. You can't PROVE it emperically, then again, you never can, but you can definitely test it. Besides, formal science goes in the same bag as what I said about math: It's all about definitions, which is what the "formal" comes from. We define a formal system, then we get knowledge from that system, but it's just abstract concepts, there's no actual truth there outside of the formal system. I knew things that I didn't know before. Yes, I applied principles that I knew earlier to get them, but that doesn't mean that its not a form of knowledge production. Also, the point is not that I can find and prove things that are untestable, but that I can know things without having to test them. As long as this is true, I can arrive at new knowledge without using the scientific method. Also, even if I can test it with the scientific method, I can't prove it (and therefore *know* it) without using some other system of knowledge. I hate to pull a farvacola, but you basically just need to read some stuff about epistemology. Science is not the all-encompassing system that you think it is, nor is it particularly natural. Just like formal logic, its a human creation that we use to explore the world within the confines of things that we have already defined. I think you are the one who need to study epistemology since you keep saying science is not the all-encompassing system, while you're picking examples from formal science. Formal science is still science. You are using semantics to make it sound like what you're saying now is supporting your previous argument in the topic, which it does not. The fact that formal science can find proofs without empiricism does not mean it makes sense to believe in anything without basis. You don't believe anything in formal science without basis, you just have a slightly different way to find truth (and it's the only form of science where you can find actual truth since it's all based on our own definitions). Every time I present you with a form of knowledge production your response is "well, that can be science too". Science as defined by the scientific method is empirical study through testing of hypotheses. You can use formal logic or mathematics alongside science, but they are not in and of themselves part of science (note the lack of experiments). If you want to define an ever expanding system and call it science, you can do that, but you have to know that when people say science, they mean empirics. No. Mathematics and Formal Logic are both part of formal science. That's not something I made up. It IS science. You obviously don't agree on what science mean, but remember, the scientific method does NOT define science. Here's a definition of science: "a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences." Argue semantics if you want, but take it up with the dictionaries. You got stuck on me saying testable, you missed the context. Just because you don't have to do tests to get a proof in formal logic does not go against what I've been saying, the fact that you can prove it means it's falsifiable, it's possible to do tests on it and it's provable. God is none of those things. The invisible teapots are none of those things. It's just random thoughts which you can learn nothing from. You can speculate, you can come up with new ideas, but you can't get any knowledge. You can't apply science, natural nor formal, to learn anything. You can't get any knowledge because there's no basis. In a formal system, there is a basis. You can test hypotheses out, you can prove them. Your discussion on formal logic in no way shows that you can get knowledge from God. You can get knowledge from reading the bible, you can get inspiration from stories about god... but those things are material. My core argument stands.
My point isn't to try to somehow get knowledge from God. God isn't a system of knowledge production. The fundamental question is what to do in the case that our system doesn't prescribe an answer. You want to automatically assume no, but you have given 0 reason for this to be the case. The only hope at a justification for this principle is an appeal to progress which borders on absurd. Somehow if I fail to comment certain things that are outside the role of science I will necessarily hurt science as an enterpreise? This simply isn't the case. Instead you can simply accept that your system doesn't give an answer to every case and move on.
|
On October 18 2013 21:02 packrat386 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2013 20:52 Tobberoth wrote:On October 18 2013 20:45 packrat386 wrote:On October 18 2013 20:26 Tobberoth wrote:On October 18 2013 20:20 packrat386 wrote:On October 18 2013 20:09 Tobberoth wrote:On October 18 2013 19:58 packrat386 wrote:On October 18 2013 19:42 Tobberoth wrote:On October 18 2013 19:39 packrat386 wrote:On October 18 2013 19:25 Tobberoth wrote:
[quote]
If science can't provide the truth value, nothing else can either. How do you see if something is true if you can't test whether or not it's true? At best, you can accept that you don't know. There are more ways to know that things are true than by testing them. I could list to you many truths that I have arrived at using another system of knowledge production (notably formal logic) that I can know to be true and yet never have tested.
That there are uncountably many real numbers is only true because we define a concept ourselves which is true by definition. There's no truth to use science or anything else to find there. That doesn't mean it's a different form of knowledge production. The real numbers are just an abstract definition used in actual science.
You really ought to read some epistemology stuff. If I am arriving at new, true, justified, belief then I am creating new knowledge here, and the way that I am doing it is not through science. Science as an epistemology basically entails the scientific method, but there are other ways that I can come to know things. Give me an example. An hypothesis which is completely untestable, completely unfalsifiable, that you came to understand the truth value of using something else than science. Should be noted that formal logic is in many senses of the word science. For example, Kant called it the science of judgement. Unfalsifiable isn't a necessary condition for my knowledge production to not be science, but this one is untestable. For any statements A, B, and C: ((~A v ~(B v C)) * C * B)-> A Written in a way of formatting formal logic but it reads "not A or not (B or C) AND C AND B implies A". This statement isn't one you can test empircally, since there not any concept of data that could show this to be true or false. However, if I follow the rules of formal logic, I can show that this is the case. Lastly, Kant was using science in a different meaning. The Scientific Method is based on empiricism, formal logic is not. Sure you can test it. Take a bunch of statements and see if you can break it. You can't PROVE it emperically, then again, you never can, but you can definitely test it. Besides, formal science goes in the same bag as what I said about math: It's all about definitions, which is what the "formal" comes from. We define a formal system, then we get knowledge from that system, but it's just abstract concepts, there's no actual truth there outside of the formal system. I knew things that I didn't know before. Yes, I applied principles that I knew earlier to get them, but that doesn't mean that its not a form of knowledge production. Also, the point is not that I can find and prove things that are untestable, but that I can know things without having to test them. As long as this is true, I can arrive at new knowledge without using the scientific method. Also, even if I can test it with the scientific method, I can't prove it (and therefore *know* it) without using some other system of knowledge. I hate to pull a farvacola, but you basically just need to read some stuff about epistemology. Science is not the all-encompassing system that you think it is, nor is it particularly natural. Just like formal logic, its a human creation that we use to explore the world within the confines of things that we have already defined. I think you are the one who need to study epistemology since you keep saying science is not the all-encompassing system, while you're picking examples from formal science. Formal science is still science. You are using semantics to make it sound like what you're saying now is supporting your previous argument in the topic, which it does not. The fact that formal science can find proofs without empiricism does not mean it makes sense to believe in anything without basis. You don't believe anything in formal science without basis, you just have a slightly different way to find truth (and it's the only form of science where you can find actual truth since it's all based on our own definitions). Every time I present you with a form of knowledge production your response is "well, that can be science too". Science as defined by the scientific method is empirical study through testing of hypotheses. You can use formal logic or mathematics alongside science, but they are not in and of themselves part of science (note the lack of experiments). If you want to define an ever expanding system and call it science, you can do that, but you have to know that when people say science, they mean empirics. No. Mathematics and Formal Logic are both part of formal science. That's not something I made up. It IS science. You obviously don't agree on what science mean, but remember, the scientific method does NOT define science. Here's a definition of science: "a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences." Argue semantics if you want, but take it up with the dictionaries. You got stuck on me saying testable, you missed the context. Just because you don't have to do tests to get a proof in formal logic does not go against what I've been saying, the fact that you can prove it means it's falsifiable, it's possible to do tests on it and it's provable. God is none of those things. The invisible teapots are none of those things. It's just random thoughts which you can learn nothing from. You can speculate, you can come up with new ideas, but you can't get any knowledge. You can't apply science, natural nor formal, to learn anything. You can't get any knowledge because there's no basis. In a formal system, there is a basis. You can test hypotheses out, you can prove them. Your discussion on formal logic in no way shows that you can get knowledge from God. You can get knowledge from reading the bible, you can get inspiration from stories about god... but those things are material. My core argument stands. My point isn't to try to somehow get knowledge from God. God isn't a system of knowledge production. The fundamental question is what to do in the case that our system doesn't prescribe an answer. You want to automatically assume no, but you have given 0 reason for this to be the case. The only hope at a justification for this principle is an appeal to progress which borders on absurd. Somehow if I fail to comment certain things that are outside the role of science I will necessarily hurt science as an enterpreise? This simply isn't the case. Instead you can simply accept that your system doesn't give an answer to every case and move on.
No one claimed it gives all answers. I specifically said earlier that there's lots of stuff that science can't explain, and might never explain. However, nothing else can either. If you try to answer real questions using religion, it's the same as doing science without basis, which simply doesn't work. Christianity claims the world was created in 7 days. It's impossible to get any truth value from this, because it's impossible to get any truth value whether God exists or not.
Fine, science can't answer why you exist right this moment, and maybe this God figure someone made up and you decided to believe in without any basis can. Fine by me. But don't claim it isn't inconsistant, and don't claim that the burden of proof suddenly switches. The reasons burden on proof is on the claimer in science is identical when discussing religion or anything else. If you're searching for truth and you come up with a possible truth, that's an hypothesis. If you have no basis and nothing at all to work with, you're stuck. And just like in real science, if there's nothing to work with in your hypothesis, it will be ignored because knowledge can't be gained from it.
|
On October 18 2013 21:13 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2013 21:02 packrat386 wrote:On October 18 2013 20:52 Tobberoth wrote:On October 18 2013 20:45 packrat386 wrote:On October 18 2013 20:26 Tobberoth wrote:On October 18 2013 20:20 packrat386 wrote:On October 18 2013 20:09 Tobberoth wrote:On October 18 2013 19:58 packrat386 wrote:On October 18 2013 19:42 Tobberoth wrote:On October 18 2013 19:39 packrat386 wrote:
[quote]
There are more ways to know that things are true than by testing them. I could list to you many truths that I have arrived at using another system of knowledge production (notably formal logic) that I can know to be true and yet never have tested.
[quote]
You really ought to read some epistemology stuff. If I am arriving at new, true, justified, belief then I am creating new knowledge here, and the way that I am doing it is not through science. Science as an epistemology basically entails the scientific method, but there are other ways that I can come to know things. Give me an example. An hypothesis which is completely untestable, completely unfalsifiable, that you came to understand the truth value of using something else than science. Should be noted that formal logic is in many senses of the word science. For example, Kant called it the science of judgement. Unfalsifiable isn't a necessary condition for my knowledge production to not be science, but this one is untestable. For any statements A, B, and C: ((~A v ~(B v C)) * C * B)-> A Written in a way of formatting formal logic but it reads "not A or not (B or C) AND C AND B implies A". This statement isn't one you can test empircally, since there not any concept of data that could show this to be true or false. However, if I follow the rules of formal logic, I can show that this is the case. Lastly, Kant was using science in a different meaning. The Scientific Method is based on empiricism, formal logic is not. Sure you can test it. Take a bunch of statements and see if you can break it. You can't PROVE it emperically, then again, you never can, but you can definitely test it. Besides, formal science goes in the same bag as what I said about math: It's all about definitions, which is what the "formal" comes from. We define a formal system, then we get knowledge from that system, but it's just abstract concepts, there's no actual truth there outside of the formal system. I knew things that I didn't know before. Yes, I applied principles that I knew earlier to get them, but that doesn't mean that its not a form of knowledge production. Also, the point is not that I can find and prove things that are untestable, but that I can know things without having to test them. As long as this is true, I can arrive at new knowledge without using the scientific method. Also, even if I can test it with the scientific method, I can't prove it (and therefore *know* it) without using some other system of knowledge. I hate to pull a farvacola, but you basically just need to read some stuff about epistemology. Science is not the all-encompassing system that you think it is, nor is it particularly natural. Just like formal logic, its a human creation that we use to explore the world within the confines of things that we have already defined. I think you are the one who need to study epistemology since you keep saying science is not the all-encompassing system, while you're picking examples from formal science. Formal science is still science. You are using semantics to make it sound like what you're saying now is supporting your previous argument in the topic, which it does not. The fact that formal science can find proofs without empiricism does not mean it makes sense to believe in anything without basis. You don't believe anything in formal science without basis, you just have a slightly different way to find truth (and it's the only form of science where you can find actual truth since it's all based on our own definitions). Every time I present you with a form of knowledge production your response is "well, that can be science too". Science as defined by the scientific method is empirical study through testing of hypotheses. You can use formal logic or mathematics alongside science, but they are not in and of themselves part of science (note the lack of experiments). If you want to define an ever expanding system and call it science, you can do that, but you have to know that when people say science, they mean empirics. No. Mathematics and Formal Logic are both part of formal science. That's not something I made up. It IS science. You obviously don't agree on what science mean, but remember, the scientific method does NOT define science. Here's a definition of science: "a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences." Argue semantics if you want, but take it up with the dictionaries. You got stuck on me saying testable, you missed the context. Just because you don't have to do tests to get a proof in formal logic does not go against what I've been saying, the fact that you can prove it means it's falsifiable, it's possible to do tests on it and it's provable. God is none of those things. The invisible teapots are none of those things. It's just random thoughts which you can learn nothing from. You can speculate, you can come up with new ideas, but you can't get any knowledge. You can't apply science, natural nor formal, to learn anything. You can't get any knowledge because there's no basis. In a formal system, there is a basis. You can test hypotheses out, you can prove them. Your discussion on formal logic in no way shows that you can get knowledge from God. You can get knowledge from reading the bible, you can get inspiration from stories about god... but those things are material. My core argument stands. My point isn't to try to somehow get knowledge from God. God isn't a system of knowledge production. The fundamental question is what to do in the case that our system doesn't prescribe an answer. You want to automatically assume no, but you have given 0 reason for this to be the case. The only hope at a justification for this principle is an appeal to progress which borders on absurd. Somehow if I fail to comment certain things that are outside the role of science I will necessarily hurt science as an enterpreise? This simply isn't the case. Instead you can simply accept that your system doesn't give an answer to every case and move on. No one claimed it gives all answers. I specifically said earlier that there's lots of stuff that science can't explain, and might never explain. However, nothing else can either. If you try to answer real questions using religion, it's the same as doing science without basis, which simply doesn't work. Christianity claims the world was created in 7 days. It's impossible to get any truth value from this, because it's impossible to get any truth value whether God exists or not. Fine, science can't answer why you exist right this moment, and maybe this God figure someone made up and you decided to believe in without any basis can. Fine by me. But don't claim it isn't inconsistant, and don't claim that the burden of proof suddenly switches. The reasons burden on proof is on the claimer in science is identical when discussing religion or anything else. If you're searching for truth and you come up with a possible truth, that's an hypothesis. If you have no basis and nothing at all to work with, you're stuck. And just like in real science, if there's nothing to work with in your hypothesis, it will be ignored because knowledge can't be gained from it.
Fuck your burden of proof. it is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Also, like I said earlier I'm not trying to posit religion as a system of knowledge production so the question of whether it tells me much about the world is also irrelevant.
You have yet to provide a reason why in the absence of evidence (be it proof or empirics) either for or against a hypothesis, I should necessarily reject the hypothesis. At this point you likely never will seem you seem unable to even grasp that I could call into the question your security blanket of occams razor. Russels teapot sounds good, but is fundamentally unsound.
edit: By the way, this thread is dead, and I'm personally done discussing this since its basically just me restating my point over and over and having it fly over everyone's head because you were too busy circlejerking to how rational you think you are.
|
On October 18 2013 21:21 packrat386 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2013 21:13 Tobberoth wrote:On October 18 2013 21:02 packrat386 wrote:On October 18 2013 20:52 Tobberoth wrote:On October 18 2013 20:45 packrat386 wrote:On October 18 2013 20:26 Tobberoth wrote:On October 18 2013 20:20 packrat386 wrote:On October 18 2013 20:09 Tobberoth wrote:On October 18 2013 19:58 packrat386 wrote:On October 18 2013 19:42 Tobberoth wrote:
[quote]
Give me an example. An hypothesis which is completely untestable, completely unfalsifiable, that you came to understand the truth value of using something else than science.
Should be noted that formal logic is in many senses of the word science. For example, Kant called it the science of judgement. Unfalsifiable isn't a necessary condition for my knowledge production to not be science, but this one is untestable. For any statements A, B, and C: ((~A v ~(B v C)) * C * B)-> A Written in a way of formatting formal logic but it reads "not A or not (B or C) AND C AND B implies A". This statement isn't one you can test empircally, since there not any concept of data that could show this to be true or false. However, if I follow the rules of formal logic, I can show that this is the case. Lastly, Kant was using science in a different meaning. The Scientific Method is based on empiricism, formal logic is not. Sure you can test it. Take a bunch of statements and see if you can break it. You can't PROVE it emperically, then again, you never can, but you can definitely test it. Besides, formal science goes in the same bag as what I said about math: It's all about definitions, which is what the "formal" comes from. We define a formal system, then we get knowledge from that system, but it's just abstract concepts, there's no actual truth there outside of the formal system. I knew things that I didn't know before. Yes, I applied principles that I knew earlier to get them, but that doesn't mean that its not a form of knowledge production. Also, the point is not that I can find and prove things that are untestable, but that I can know things without having to test them. As long as this is true, I can arrive at new knowledge without using the scientific method. Also, even if I can test it with the scientific method, I can't prove it (and therefore *know* it) without using some other system of knowledge. I hate to pull a farvacola, but you basically just need to read some stuff about epistemology. Science is not the all-encompassing system that you think it is, nor is it particularly natural. Just like formal logic, its a human creation that we use to explore the world within the confines of things that we have already defined. I think you are the one who need to study epistemology since you keep saying science is not the all-encompassing system, while you're picking examples from formal science. Formal science is still science. You are using semantics to make it sound like what you're saying now is supporting your previous argument in the topic, which it does not. The fact that formal science can find proofs without empiricism does not mean it makes sense to believe in anything without basis. You don't believe anything in formal science without basis, you just have a slightly different way to find truth (and it's the only form of science where you can find actual truth since it's all based on our own definitions). Every time I present you with a form of knowledge production your response is "well, that can be science too". Science as defined by the scientific method is empirical study through testing of hypotheses. You can use formal logic or mathematics alongside science, but they are not in and of themselves part of science (note the lack of experiments). If you want to define an ever expanding system and call it science, you can do that, but you have to know that when people say science, they mean empirics. No. Mathematics and Formal Logic are both part of formal science. That's not something I made up. It IS science. You obviously don't agree on what science mean, but remember, the scientific method does NOT define science. Here's a definition of science: "a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences." Argue semantics if you want, but take it up with the dictionaries. You got stuck on me saying testable, you missed the context. Just because you don't have to do tests to get a proof in formal logic does not go against what I've been saying, the fact that you can prove it means it's falsifiable, it's possible to do tests on it and it's provable. God is none of those things. The invisible teapots are none of those things. It's just random thoughts which you can learn nothing from. You can speculate, you can come up with new ideas, but you can't get any knowledge. You can't apply science, natural nor formal, to learn anything. You can't get any knowledge because there's no basis. In a formal system, there is a basis. You can test hypotheses out, you can prove them. Your discussion on formal logic in no way shows that you can get knowledge from God. You can get knowledge from reading the bible, you can get inspiration from stories about god... but those things are material. My core argument stands. My point isn't to try to somehow get knowledge from God. God isn't a system of knowledge production. The fundamental question is what to do in the case that our system doesn't prescribe an answer. You want to automatically assume no, but you have given 0 reason for this to be the case. The only hope at a justification for this principle is an appeal to progress which borders on absurd. Somehow if I fail to comment certain things that are outside the role of science I will necessarily hurt science as an enterpreise? This simply isn't the case. Instead you can simply accept that your system doesn't give an answer to every case and move on. No one claimed it gives all answers. I specifically said earlier that there's lots of stuff that science can't explain, and might never explain. However, nothing else can either. If you try to answer real questions using religion, it's the same as doing science without basis, which simply doesn't work. Christianity claims the world was created in 7 days. It's impossible to get any truth value from this, because it's impossible to get any truth value whether God exists or not. Fine, science can't answer why you exist right this moment, and maybe this God figure someone made up and you decided to believe in without any basis can. Fine by me. But don't claim it isn't inconsistant, and don't claim that the burden of proof suddenly switches. The reasons burden on proof is on the claimer in science is identical when discussing religion or anything else. If you're searching for truth and you come up with a possible truth, that's an hypothesis. If you have no basis and nothing at all to work with, you're stuck. And just like in real science, if there's nothing to work with in your hypothesis, it will be ignored because knowledge can't be gained from it. Fuck your burden of proof. it is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Also, like I said earlier I'm not trying to posit religion as a system of knowledge production so the question of whether it tells me much about the world is also irrelevant. You have yet to provide a reason why in the absence of evidence (be it proof or empirics) either for or against a hypothesis, I should necessarily reject the hypothesis. At this point you likely never will seem you seem unable to even grasp that I could call into the question your security blanket of occams razor. Russels teapot sounds good, but is fundamentally unsound.
This argument is getting ridiculous, it's taken so far off-topic it possibly can. I will try to make my point across as clearly as I can, then I'm done because I honestly don't have much more to say on the topic. Either you got my point and simply disagree with it and I accept I can't do anything more to persuade you, or I haven't gotten my point across clearly enough, which I have to accept if that's the case, because I don't think I can do any better than this.
Your argument is that if you hear an hypothesis where truth value can not be optained, for example "God exists and created the universe", there's no more reason to reject it than to accept it. This is, obviously, where the argument started. Now, I can sit here and come up with a hundred different hypotheses where no truth value can be obtained. Your stance on the issue is that you have no reason to reject them (and no reason to accept them). For example, space is filled with undetectable teapots. Another example, the sun was actually created by a cosmic fart which only happens once in a universes life time. Let's say I list 100 hypotheses like this. How many of them will you believe in? All? None? Well, since you have no reason to either reject or accept them, you should probably believe in 50 of them. But you won't, right? Be honest. You won't believe in any of them. So why do christians believe in God? Why do hindus believe in Shiva? Not only that, they live by these ideas, they let them constrain them, they take comfort in them.
Why? What's so special about the hypothesis that God exists, compared to the invisible teapots? Both are hypotheses where no truth value can be obtained. Since I wouldn't believe it if someone told me a Pink Elephant pooped out the earth, why should I believe in God? That would be inconsistant. This is, in essence, what the teapot argument is about. Sure, if the pots are detectable, as in the original argument, it is in a sense unsound because it is, like you said, not directly applicable. But I honestly don't think Russel meant it like that, he just wanted other relatable hypotheses.
Thanks for a good discussion, I hope this clarified my point enough. Feel free to answer this post but I probably won't reply in the topic, if you want me to answer something directly, feel free to PM me.
|
You're really just abusing the word "science." Yes, technically science can refer to things like mathematics (although there is a lot of controversy among mathematicians as to whether this label is fitting) and logic (less common, because science is actually a form of logical argument, not the other way around) but when people say "you should look at this scientifically," they usually mean the scientific method. That means empiricism. Mathematicians and logicians absolutely do not care to use empiricism in their fields.
If you're going to lump everything into this all-encompassing field of "science" and then just piddle away the difference by using the word "formal," then your argument says nothing, because you're literally defining science to be the sum-total of truth values, which is false, because not all truth values are obtained in an empirical fashion. It doesn't matter if they could be falsifiable; what matters is that the method employed to obtain them is not based on falsification, but on abstract reasoning, which means it falls outside of the realm of what we'd ordinarily call science, which is the organization of knowledge by way of testable hypotheses and experiments. Formal logic rejects these things as valid proof, as does mathematics. Hell, the biggest unsolved problem in mathematics (arguably, anyway, that is, the Riemann conjecture) has been computed to many digits and confirmed for those digits by explicit construction. But this doesn't prove the conjecture in a mathematical sense.
|
Wow, a wall of mumbo jumbo peppered with some random sentences aimed to put down Tobberoth.
In any case, i'm pretty sure we have established an agreement on the fact that God's existence is about as likely as the purple caterpillar. So why are we still arguing?
|
![[image loading]](http://dududiaries.wildlifedirect.org/files/2009/08/watamu-ant-cat-lr1.jpg)
I guess that settles it then.
|
On October 19 2013 03:36 Recognizable wrote:I guess that settles it then.
That caterpillar is baller.
![[image loading]](http://www.plantanswers.com/bluewormlg.jpg)
So many caterpillars. Uncountably many.
|
Fuck your burden of proof. it is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Also, like I said earlier I'm not trying to posit religion as a system of knowledge production so the question of whether it tells me much about the world is also irrelevant.
You have yet to provide a reason why in the absence of evidence (be it proof or empirics) either for or against a hypothesis, I should necessarily reject the hypothesis. At this point you likely never will seem you seem unable to even grasp that I could call into the question your security blanket of occams razor. Russels teapot sounds good, but is fundamentally unsound.
edit: By the way, this thread is dead, and I'm personally done discussing this since its basically just me restating my point over and over and having it fly over everyone's head because you were too busy circlejerking to how rational you think you are.
All you have done is create an untestable god that is logically internally consistent. That's no more exciting that an invisible purple caterpillar or supernatural Mayor McCheese. The default position is still disbelief. The fact that your god is internally consistent does absolutely nothing to answer the question whether it is true. Nothing.
All you are doing is giving an opinion. I don't care whether it is your opinion that god exists anymore than I care about your opinion on whether supernatural Mayor McCheese exists. What matters to me is whether something is true.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
