|
On August 02 2014 02:30 GeckoXp wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2014 01:50 bookwyrm wrote:On August 02 2014 01:47 2Pacalypse- wrote:
However, the most useful way of thinking about scientific theory in its truest sense would be to use the word "fact" in ordinary language. No. Not because of the claim you are trying to make (to give "theory" a more solid epistemological force). But a "fact" is a much dumber thing than a theory. A "fact" is something like "the sun keeps rising." A "theory" has to explain why. If you reduce "theory" to "fact" you make "theory" a much less powerful entity, which is not what you are trying to do here. Following your logic, there's nothing we can ever know. I guess it'd help you out a lot if you'd actually talk to someone with a better grasp of empirical procedures, rather than getting your knowledge from hilariously overcomplicated texts.
No, I haven't said that, nor do I believe that. Try harder. That doesn't even respond to the thing I said that you're quoting.
On August 02 2014 02:29 zulu_nation8 wrote:
what counts as a philosophical question exactly? For example, "what is the nature of water?" used to be a purely philosophical question.
I wouldn't want to make a prescriptive claim about what are philosophical questions. A good proxy for the current discussion is anything involving a normative claim, i.e. ethics. We can leave it at that for the purposes of the discussion. It's a good question though.
Also note that the question hasn't really gone away, just shifted further back. We no longer ask "what is the nature of water," but it is a valid sort of question to ask "when we speak about matter, what are we really speaking about - i.e. what is our ontology under which we are able to conceive of such things as "atoms" and "energy" (and how to we represent these things to ourselves, metaphorically, since we can't actually think "atom" directly but only in some metaphorical way - so what is the best metaphor that we should use?). It's not a scientific question - science doesn't really do ontology, it just postulates theoretical entities. Philosophy has to take scientific theories about these things as "conditions" (as badiou would say) but doing ontology based on these conditions is not "scientific" but rather philosophical.
On August 02 2014 02:33 MoonfireSpam wrote:Show nested quote +Another philosophical question: what do you do when there are questions that you cannot answer, but must answer? This is one that I'm particularly interested in. Can't answer this in philosophy speak but in real life in the context of making a difficult diagnosis. You observe as much as you can (X-rays, CT, blood tests - not always with high degrees of probability. Not always available) You try and grasp context (patient history, previous admissions, risk factors - all very subjective stuff) Use past experience (bias) Use pre existing knowledge of others i.e. specialists, text books (also subject to bias) Formulate answer based on above. Screen answer to make sure it passes guidelines (gotta protect your own ass). Give answer and treat based on most likely outcome. Wait with interest to see what happens and repeat from start if required. I'd actually be interested in hearing a philosophy side to that methodology (or maybe there isn't one to be made - also fine).
But that's just a question about some scientific fact. That's not the kind of question that I'm interested in. I can leave that to science, I don't care.
I'm talking about a question like "What should I do with my life and why?"
That's a question which is impossible to answer but which nevertheless must be answered.
|
Croatia9512 Posts
On August 02 2014 02:15 Prog wrote:Noone said that anyone believed in the higgs boson without context. What I argue for is that people believed it because of explanatory power, not because of it being empirically justified (because that was impossible for a very long time). But you seem not to understand this difference at all.The higgs boson fit well into the framework and could explain a bunch of stuff. Noone had empirical data that it existed. But still they had a good reason to believe that it exists. And obviously you should use the term "belief" in science. Not using belief is hilarious. I don't know how it is in your native language, but in english "belief" is not something that is used in stark contrast to knowledge, neither is it solely used for unscientific stuff (religion, mysticism etc). Knowledge requires belief for 99% of english speaking people! Believing something just means regarding something as true! Also: Show nested quote +...the reality still wouldn't give a damn if we justified that belief or not... Last time I checked I was part of the reality. And I'd rather only believe in propositions I am justified believing in.
I really feel this discussion has become pointless. You can go on believing (ha!) whatever you want. When beliefs are proven wrong in science, they're discarded/changed. That's why they're irrelevant, and instead the concept of probability is much more suitable; ie. something is either more likely or less likely true.
On August 02 2014 02:16 bookwyrm wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2014 02:00 2Pacalypse- wrote:On August 02 2014 01:51 bookwyrm wrote:On August 02 2014 01:51 2Pacalypse- wrote:On August 02 2014 00:36 zulu_nation8 wrote:
So when Copernicus and later Galileo first argued for their theories, they were not only empirically unjustified but directly contradicted. This continued even with the invention of the telescope for there was no rational reason to believe it gave an accurate picture of the sky. It was only until Kepler developed his theory of optics that it could be used to argue, and justify very weakly Galileo's intuitions. Copernicus acted in large part on faith.
From Against Method:
"Consider the case of the Copernican hypothesis, whose invention, defence, and partial vindication runs counter to almost every methodological rule one might care to think of today. The auxiliary sciences here contained laws describing the properties and the influence of the terrestrial atmosphere (meteorology); optical laws dealing with the structure of the eye and of telescopes, and with the behaviour of light; and dynamical laws describing motion in moving systems. Most importantly, however, the auxiliary sciences contained a theory of cognition that postulated a certain simple relation between perceptions and physical objects. Not all auxiliary disciplines were available in explicit form. Many of them merged with the observation language, and led to the situation described at the beginning of the preceding paragraph.
Consideration of all these circumstances, of observation terms, sensory core, auxiliary sciences, background speculation, suggest that a theory may be inconsistent with the evidence, not because it is incorrect, but because the evidence is contaminated. The theory is threatened because the evidence either contains unanalysed sensations which only partly correspond to external processes, or because it is presented in terms of antiquated views, or because it is evaluated with the help of backward auxiliary subjects. The Copernican theory was in trouble for all these reasons.
It is this historico-physiological character of the evidence, the fact that it does not merely describe some objective state of affairs but also expresses subjective, mythical, and long-forgotten views concerning this state of affairs, that forces us to take a fresh look at methodology. It shows that it would be extremely imprudent to let the evidence judge our theories directly and without any further ado. A straightforward and unqualified judgement of theories by 'facts' is bound to eliminate ideas simply because they do not fit into the framework of some older cosmology . Taking experimental results and observations for granted and putting the burden of proof on the theory means taking the observational ideology for granted without having ever examined it. (Note that the experimental results are supposed to have been obtained with the greatest possible care. Hence 'taking observations,etc., for granted' means 'taking them for granted after the most careful examination of their reliability': for even the most careful examination of an observation statement does not interfere with the concepts in which it is expressed, or with the structure of the sensory image.)" This sounds like a whole bunch of philosophy to me  (which I admit, I'm not that well versed in). If you could reiterate the main argument here in simpler terms by using an example from the last 100 year, that would be very helpful. Oh come on, it's perfectly readable. Don't stick your fingers in your ears and go nanana. You might have to read it slower and think more about individual words than you're used to, but I promise you can understand what Feyerabend is saying, he's not that smart. Holy condescending batman. Let's just say I have a 7 year old nephew here next to me who wants to know. Can you explain it to him? No, he's not old enough. You, on the other hand, are.
Why are you being condescending towards my imaginary 7 year old nephew. He's a bright kid, try him.
On August 02 2014 02:16 bookwyrm wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2014 01:57 2Pacalypse- wrote:On August 02 2014 01:50 bookwyrm wrote:On August 02 2014 01:47 2Pacalypse- wrote:
However, the most useful way of thinking about scientific theory in its truest sense would be to use the word "fact" in ordinary language. No. Not because of the claim you are trying to make (to give "theory" a more solid epistemological force). But a "fact" is a much dumber thing than a theory. A "fact" is something like "the sun keeps rising." A "theory" has to explain why. If you reduce "theory" to "fact" you make "theory" a much less powerful entity, which is not what you are trying to do here. I really don't want to enter a semantics and definition discussion here. I'm just saying when you try to explain what a "scientific theory" is to a common person, the best way is by equating it with a fact. And I'm explaining why that's a bad idea, but you don't want to talk about it, apparently. Don't accuse me of condescension and then go around about what is the "best way to explain to a 'common person.'" My point was that doing so vitiates your own position and makes it weaker. Don't listen to me if you don't care, I guess, I'm trying to help you here. there's nothing more infuriating than a person who makes some claim and then responds to any possible criticism with "I don't want to argue semantics." What that sentence means is "I just wanna say whatever I want and have it be true without thinking about what I'm really saying or defending it against someone who disagrees." I don't understand why people who say the word "semantics" as a rebuttal even talk to other people in the first place. Do you not have a mirror?
When I said that I don't want to argue semantics, that's exactly what I meant. When someone says that evolution is just a theory; you correct him by saying that it's a theory in scientific sense of the word, a fact. You can go on explaining to him why it's a fact, but he will, hopefully, understand what you mean by the word fact.
On August 02 2014 02:16 bookwyrm wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2014 02:06 2Pacalypse- wrote:On August 02 2014 01:23 bookwyrm wrote:On August 01 2014 18:13 2Pacalypse- wrote:
You somehow think that science can't ask a single philosophical question, when I would argue it's just a way of pursuing knowledge, much like philosophy; it just goes about it by actually going outside and looking at the world. no, "science" can't. Can you give an example? I've argued about this with a lot of people, and nobody has ever been able to give an example. Design me a quick experiment that answers some sort of philosophical question. Please! I didn't say science can answer philosophical questions, just that it can ask them. and I asked for an example, which you didn't give. I didn't expect you to, as nobody ever has, out of the dozens of people who have made this claim and whom I've asked for examples.
Why is there something rather than nothing?
Is our universe real?
Do we have free will?
Is there life after death?
What is the best moral system?
etc
Also, as zulu said, there have been a lot of questions that were defined as philosophical questions that have been since answered by science. Eg, where did life come from?
On August 02 2014 02:16 bookwyrm wrote:Show nested quote +But then again, I'm pretty sure philosophy can't answer philosophical questions either Figuring out what the questions are is enough task for a lifetime. Another philosophical question: what do you do when there are questions that you cannot answer, but must answer? This is one that I'm particularly interested in. edit: At any rate, I wish I could put you and my professor in a room together and watch with a bag of popcorn. The only trouble is, the encounter would make you both feel like you were each right, when what you should both realize is that you are each horribly wrong and that I'm right... but alas...
Here's another philosophical question for you: what do you do when you ask yourself questions that are silly questions and/or don't have answers?
|
On August 02 2014 03:07 2Pacalypse- wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2014 02:16 bookwyrm wrote:On August 02 2014 01:57 2Pacalypse- wrote:On August 02 2014 01:50 bookwyrm wrote:On August 02 2014 01:47 2Pacalypse- wrote:
However, the most useful way of thinking about scientific theory in its truest sense would be to use the word "fact" in ordinary language. No. Not because of the claim you are trying to make (to give "theory" a more solid epistemological force). But a "fact" is a much dumber thing than a theory. A "fact" is something like "the sun keeps rising." A "theory" has to explain why. If you reduce "theory" to "fact" you make "theory" a much less powerful entity, which is not what you are trying to do here. I really don't want to enter a semantics and definition discussion here. I'm just saying when you try to explain what a "scientific theory" is to a common person, the best way is by equating it with a fact. And I'm explaining why that's a bad idea, but you don't want to talk about it, apparently. Don't accuse me of condescension and then go around about what is the "best way to explain to a 'common person.'" My point was that doing so vitiates your own position and makes it weaker. Don't listen to me if you don't care, I guess, I'm trying to help you here. there's nothing more infuriating than a person who makes some claim and then responds to any possible criticism with "I don't want to argue semantics." What that sentence means is "I just wanna say whatever I want and have it be true without thinking about what I'm really saying or defending it against someone who disagrees." I don't understand why people who say the word "semantics" as a rebuttal even talk to other people in the first place. Do you not have a mirror? When I said that I don't want to argue semantics, that's exactly what I meant. When someone says that evolution is just a theory; you correct him by saying that it's a theory in scientific sense of the word, a fact. You can go on explaining to him why it's a fact, but he will, hopefully, understand what you mean by the word fact.
But if you tell him it's a fact, you will be telling him an incorrect thing. A theory is not a fact, it's much more interesting than a fact. The theory of evolution is not a fact, it's a theory, don't insult it by calling it a fact. If you try to shore up the epistemological force of "science" by confusing theory with fact you are just engaging in dogmatics and ultimately making your position weaker.
Show nested quote +On August 02 2014 02:16 bookwyrm wrote:On August 02 2014 02:06 2Pacalypse- wrote:On August 02 2014 01:23 bookwyrm wrote:On August 01 2014 18:13 2Pacalypse- wrote:
You somehow think that science can't ask a single philosophical question, when I would argue it's just a way of pursuing knowledge, much like philosophy; it just goes about it by actually going outside and looking at the world. no, "science" can't. Can you give an example? I've argued about this with a lot of people, and nobody has ever been able to give an example. Design me a quick experiment that answers some sort of philosophical question. Please! I didn't say science can answer philosophical questions, just that it can ask them. and I asked for an example, which you didn't give. I didn't expect you to, as nobody ever has, out of the dozens of people who have made this claim and whom I've asked for examples. Why is there something rather than nothing? Is our universe real? Do we have free will? Is there life after death? What is the best moral system? etc
right, so now you have to pose experiments which would answer these questions... that's what I asked... you've just listed possible questions...
still waiting
edit: To stave off the inevitable misunderstanding, let me try to separate two claims:
"science can answer philosophical questions."
"science can provide useful and interesting knowledge which must be considered when attempting to answer philosophical questions."
the first is false. the second is true.
edit: Let me just say how therapeutic it is for me to argue about this with you guys, since I've been going crazy pulling my hair out this last year arguing with your complete polar opposites. It's so funny to me how self-evident both sides think their positions are - it's not even possible for the two to communicate. And each side thinks I belong to the other one
|
On August 02 2014 03:02 bookwyrm wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2014 02:30 GeckoXp wrote:On August 02 2014 01:50 bookwyrm wrote:On August 02 2014 01:47 2Pacalypse- wrote:
However, the most useful way of thinking about scientific theory in its truest sense would be to use the word "fact" in ordinary language. No. Not because of the claim you are trying to make (to give "theory" a more solid epistemological force). But a "fact" is a much dumber thing than a theory. A "fact" is something like "the sun keeps rising." A "theory" has to explain why. If you reduce "theory" to "fact" you make "theory" a much less powerful entity, which is not what you are trying to do here. Following your logic, there's nothing we can ever know. I guess it'd help you out a lot if you'd actually talk to someone with a better grasp of empirical procedures, rather than getting your knowledge from hilariously overcomplicated texts. No, I haven't said that, nor do I believe that. Try harder. That doesn't even respond to the thing I said that you're quoting. Show nested quote +On August 02 2014 02:29 zulu_nation8 wrote:
what counts as a philosophical question exactly? For example, "what is the nature of water?" used to be a purely philosophical question. I wouldn't want to make a prescriptive claim about what are philosophical questions. A good proxy for the current discussion is anything involving a normative claim, i.e. ethics. We can leave it at that for the purposes of the discussion. It's a good question though. Also note that the question hasn't really gone away, just shifted further back. We no longer ask "what is the nature of water," but it is a valid sort of question to ask "when we speak about matter, what are we really speaking about - i.e. what is our ontology under which we are able to conceive of such things as "atoms" and "energy" (and how to we represent these things to ourselves, metaphorically, since we can't actually think "atom" directly but only in some metaphorical way - so what is the best metaphor that we should use?). It's not a scientific question - science doesn't really do ontology, it just postulates theoretical entities. Philosophy has to take scientific theories about these things as "conditions" (as badiou would say) but doing ontology based on these conditions is not "scientific" but rather philosophical. Show nested quote +On August 02 2014 02:33 MoonfireSpam wrote:Another philosophical question: what do you do when there are questions that you cannot answer, but must answer? This is one that I'm particularly interested in. Can't answer this in philosophy speak but in real life in the context of making a difficult diagnosis. You observe as much as you can (X-rays, CT, blood tests - not always with high degrees of probability. Not always available) You try and grasp context (patient history, previous admissions, risk factors - all very subjective stuff) Use past experience (bias) Use pre existing knowledge of others i.e. specialists, text books (also subject to bias) Formulate answer based on above. Screen answer to make sure it passes guidelines (gotta protect your own ass). Give answer and treat based on most likely outcome. Wait with interest to see what happens and repeat from start if required. I'd actually be interested in hearing a philosophy side to that methodology (or maybe there isn't one to be made - also fine). But that's just a question about some scientific fact. That's not the kind of question that I'm interested in. I can leave that to science, I don't care. I'm talking about a question like "What should I do with my life and why?" That's a question which is impossible to answer but which nevertheless must be answered.
Actually I use almost the same approach to life, I go out and do something because the line of reasoning above tells me it might be enjoyable. But it's interesting because there's no right or wrong and everyone has a different take on it.
The obvious question back is:
Why does that question have to be answered?
|
On August 02 2014 03:20 MoonfireSpam wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2014 03:02 bookwyrm wrote:On August 02 2014 02:30 GeckoXp wrote:On August 02 2014 01:50 bookwyrm wrote:On August 02 2014 01:47 2Pacalypse- wrote:
However, the most useful way of thinking about scientific theory in its truest sense would be to use the word "fact" in ordinary language. No. Not because of the claim you are trying to make (to give "theory" a more solid epistemological force). But a "fact" is a much dumber thing than a theory. A "fact" is something like "the sun keeps rising." A "theory" has to explain why. If you reduce "theory" to "fact" you make "theory" a much less powerful entity, which is not what you are trying to do here. Following your logic, there's nothing we can ever know. I guess it'd help you out a lot if you'd actually talk to someone with a better grasp of empirical procedures, rather than getting your knowledge from hilariously overcomplicated texts. No, I haven't said that, nor do I believe that. Try harder. That doesn't even respond to the thing I said that you're quoting. On August 02 2014 02:29 zulu_nation8 wrote:
what counts as a philosophical question exactly? For example, "what is the nature of water?" used to be a purely philosophical question. I wouldn't want to make a prescriptive claim about what are philosophical questions. A good proxy for the current discussion is anything involving a normative claim, i.e. ethics. We can leave it at that for the purposes of the discussion. It's a good question though. Also note that the question hasn't really gone away, just shifted further back. We no longer ask "what is the nature of water," but it is a valid sort of question to ask "when we speak about matter, what are we really speaking about - i.e. what is our ontology under which we are able to conceive of such things as "atoms" and "energy" (and how to we represent these things to ourselves, metaphorically, since we can't actually think "atom" directly but only in some metaphorical way - so what is the best metaphor that we should use?). It's not a scientific question - science doesn't really do ontology, it just postulates theoretical entities. Philosophy has to take scientific theories about these things as "conditions" (as badiou would say) but doing ontology based on these conditions is not "scientific" but rather philosophical. On August 02 2014 02:33 MoonfireSpam wrote:Another philosophical question: what do you do when there are questions that you cannot answer, but must answer? This is one that I'm particularly interested in. Can't answer this in philosophy speak but in real life in the context of making a difficult diagnosis. You observe as much as you can (X-rays, CT, blood tests - not always with high degrees of probability. Not always available) You try and grasp context (patient history, previous admissions, risk factors - all very subjective stuff) Use past experience (bias) Use pre existing knowledge of others i.e. specialists, text books (also subject to bias) Formulate answer based on above. Screen answer to make sure it passes guidelines (gotta protect your own ass). Give answer and treat based on most likely outcome. Wait with interest to see what happens and repeat from start if required. I'd actually be interested in hearing a philosophy side to that methodology (or maybe there isn't one to be made - also fine). But that's just a question about some scientific fact. That's not the kind of question that I'm interested in. I can leave that to science, I don't care. I'm talking about a question like "What should I do with my life and why?" That's a question which is impossible to answer but which nevertheless must be answered. Actually I use almost the same approach to life. But it's interesting because there's no right or wrong and everyone has a different take on it. The obvious question back is: Why does that question have to be answered?
You just did answer it. You said "there's no right or wrong and everyone has a different take on it." Which is an answer to the question (it happens to be one with which I strenuously disagree).
|
Croatia9512 Posts
On August 02 2014 03:12 bookwyrm wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2014 03:07 2Pacalypse- wrote:On August 02 2014 02:16 bookwyrm wrote:On August 02 2014 01:57 2Pacalypse- wrote:On August 02 2014 01:50 bookwyrm wrote:On August 02 2014 01:47 2Pacalypse- wrote:
However, the most useful way of thinking about scientific theory in its truest sense would be to use the word "fact" in ordinary language. No. Not because of the claim you are trying to make (to give "theory" a more solid epistemological force). But a "fact" is a much dumber thing than a theory. A "fact" is something like "the sun keeps rising." A "theory" has to explain why. If you reduce "theory" to "fact" you make "theory" a much less powerful entity, which is not what you are trying to do here. I really don't want to enter a semantics and definition discussion here. I'm just saying when you try to explain what a "scientific theory" is to a common person, the best way is by equating it with a fact. And I'm explaining why that's a bad idea, but you don't want to talk about it, apparently. Don't accuse me of condescension and then go around about what is the "best way to explain to a 'common person.'" My point was that doing so vitiates your own position and makes it weaker. Don't listen to me if you don't care, I guess, I'm trying to help you here. there's nothing more infuriating than a person who makes some claim and then responds to any possible criticism with "I don't want to argue semantics." What that sentence means is "I just wanna say whatever I want and have it be true without thinking about what I'm really saying or defending it against someone who disagrees." I don't understand why people who say the word "semantics" as a rebuttal even talk to other people in the first place. Do you not have a mirror? When I said that I don't want to argue semantics, that's exactly what I meant. When someone says that evolution is just a theory; you correct him by saying that it's a theory in scientific sense of the word, a fact. You can go on explaining to him why it's a fact, but he will, hopefully, understand what you mean by the word fact. But if you tell him it's a fact, you will be telling him an incorrect thing. A theory is not a fact, it's much more interesting than a fact. The theory of evolution is not a fact, it's a theory, don't insult it by calling it a fact. If you try to shore up the epistemological force of "science" by confusing theory with fact you are just engaging in dogmatics and ultimately making your position weaker.
If this is not a semantics discussion, I don't know what is. Telling someone that evolution is a fact and then explaining to him why it's a fact seems like a best way to actually give him a notion on what we think by scientific theory.
On August 02 2014 03:12 bookwyrm wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2014 02:16 bookwyrm wrote:On August 02 2014 02:06 2Pacalypse- wrote:On August 02 2014 01:23 bookwyrm wrote:On August 01 2014 18:13 2Pacalypse- wrote:
You somehow think that science can't ask a single philosophical question, when I would argue it's just a way of pursuing knowledge, much like philosophy; it just goes about it by actually going outside and looking at the world. no, "science" can't. Can you give an example? I've argued about this with a lot of people, and nobody has ever been able to give an example. Design me a quick experiment that answers some sort of philosophical question. Please! I didn't say science can answer philosophical questions, just that it can ask them. and I asked for an example, which you didn't give. I didn't expect you to, as nobody ever has, out of the dozens of people who have made this claim and whom I've asked for examples. Why is there something rather than nothing? Is our universe real? Do we have free will? Is there life after death? What is the best moral system? etc right, so now you have to pose experiments which would answer these questions... that's what I asked... you've just listed possible questions... still waiting edit: To stave off the inevitable misunderstanding, let me try to separate two claims: "science can answer philosophical questions." "science can provide useful and interesting knowledge which must be considered when attempting to answer philosophical questions." the first is false. the second is true. edit: Let me just say how therapeutic it is for me to argue about this with you guys, since I've been going crazy pulling my hair out this last year arguing with your complete polar opposites. It's so funny to me how self-evident both sides think their positions are - it's not even possible for the two to communicate. And each side thinks I belong to the other one
Don't be a willful idiot please.
I've said: "I didn't say science can answer philosophical questions, just that it can ask them."
And you've said: "I asked for an example, which you didn't give."
And then I gave you an example.
|
Hmm. well this might be the end of the discussion since you're unwilling to even address what I'm saying and rely on sophomoric protestations about "semantics" (god I hate that word, the last refuge of the uncurious).
On August 02 2014 03:31 2Pacalypse- wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2014 03:12 bookwyrm wrote:On August 02 2014 03:07 2Pacalypse- wrote:On August 02 2014 02:16 bookwyrm wrote:On August 02 2014 01:57 2Pacalypse- wrote:On August 02 2014 01:50 bookwyrm wrote:On August 02 2014 01:47 2Pacalypse- wrote:
However, the most useful way of thinking about scientific theory in its truest sense would be to use the word "fact" in ordinary language. No. Not because of the claim you are trying to make (to give "theory" a more solid epistemological force). But a "fact" is a much dumber thing than a theory. A "fact" is something like "the sun keeps rising." A "theory" has to explain why. If you reduce "theory" to "fact" you make "theory" a much less powerful entity, which is not what you are trying to do here. I really don't want to enter a semantics and definition discussion here. I'm just saying when you try to explain what a "scientific theory" is to a common person, the best way is by equating it with a fact. And I'm explaining why that's a bad idea, but you don't want to talk about it, apparently. Don't accuse me of condescension and then go around about what is the "best way to explain to a 'common person.'" My point was that doing so vitiates your own position and makes it weaker. Don't listen to me if you don't care, I guess, I'm trying to help you here. there's nothing more infuriating than a person who makes some claim and then responds to any possible criticism with "I don't want to argue semantics." What that sentence means is "I just wanna say whatever I want and have it be true without thinking about what I'm really saying or defending it against someone who disagrees." I don't understand why people who say the word "semantics" as a rebuttal even talk to other people in the first place. Do you not have a mirror? When I said that I don't want to argue semantics, that's exactly what I meant. When someone says that evolution is just a theory; you correct him by saying that it's a theory in scientific sense of the word, a fact. You can go on explaining to him why it's a fact, but he will, hopefully, understand what you mean by the word fact. But if you tell him it's a fact, you will be telling him an incorrect thing. A theory is not a fact, it's much more interesting than a fact. The theory of evolution is not a fact, it's a theory, don't insult it by calling it a fact. If you try to shore up the epistemological force of "science" by confusing theory with fact you are just engaging in dogmatics and ultimately making your position weaker. If this is not a semantics discussion, I don't know what is. Telling someone that evolution is a fact and then explaining to him why it's a fact seems like a best way to actually give him a notion on what we think by scientific theory.
but it doesn't give a notion of what "we" think by scientific theory, because people who actually think about these things know that facts and theories are different things. You aren't actually saying that, what you are TRYING to do is saying that you think that scientific theories are more epistemologically robust than your interlocutor might believe (I probably agree with you about this)
the theory of evolution is a good example actually because most people now think that the Neo-Darwinian Synthesis of the 60s is an insufficient theory, that is, people working in evolutionary biology don't believe that they have a complete theory of evolution. It's a fact that organisms change over time, the theory about why this is and how it works is currently incomplete (please note: incomplete, not wrong).
On August 02 2014 03:31 2Pacalypse- wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2014 03:12 bookwyrm wrote:On August 02 2014 02:16 bookwyrm wrote:On August 02 2014 02:06 2Pacalypse- wrote:On August 02 2014 01:23 bookwyrm wrote:On August 01 2014 18:13 2Pacalypse- wrote:
You somehow think that science can't ask a single philosophical question, when I would argue it's just a way of pursuing knowledge, much like philosophy; it just goes about it by actually going outside and looking at the world. no, "science" can't. Can you give an example? I've argued about this with a lot of people, and nobody has ever been able to give an example. Design me a quick experiment that answers some sort of philosophical question. Please! I didn't say science can answer philosophical questions, just that it can ask them. and I asked for an example, which you didn't give. I didn't expect you to, as nobody ever has, out of the dozens of people who have made this claim and whom I've asked for examples. Why is there something rather than nothing? Is our universe real? Do we have free will? Is there life after death? What is the best moral system? etc right, so now you have to pose experiments which would answer these questions... that's what I asked... you've just listed possible questions... still waiting edit: To stave off the inevitable misunderstanding, let me try to separate two claims: "science can answer philosophical questions." "science can provide useful and interesting knowledge which must be considered when attempting to answer philosophical questions." the first is false. the second is true. edit: Let me just say how therapeutic it is for me to argue about this with you guys, since I've been going crazy pulling my hair out this last year arguing with your complete polar opposites. It's so funny to me how self-evident both sides think their positions are - it's not even possible for the two to communicate. And each side thinks I belong to the other one Don't be a willful idiot please. I've said: "I didn't say science can answer philosophical questions, just that it can ask them." And you've said: "I asked for an example, which you didn't give." And then I gave you an example.
You haven't provided an example. You've provided an example of asking certain sorts of questions in English. I want you to give an example of how science might investigate those questions. You haven't. I don't want an example of a philosophical question (which is what you gave), I want an example of science investigating one of those philosophical questions.
|
On August 02 2014 03:22 bookwyrm wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2014 03:20 MoonfireSpam wrote:On August 02 2014 03:02 bookwyrm wrote:On August 02 2014 02:30 GeckoXp wrote:On August 02 2014 01:50 bookwyrm wrote:On August 02 2014 01:47 2Pacalypse- wrote:
However, the most useful way of thinking about scientific theory in its truest sense would be to use the word "fact" in ordinary language. No. Not because of the claim you are trying to make (to give "theory" a more solid epistemological force). But a "fact" is a much dumber thing than a theory. A "fact" is something like "the sun keeps rising." A "theory" has to explain why. If you reduce "theory" to "fact" you make "theory" a much less powerful entity, which is not what you are trying to do here. Following your logic, there's nothing we can ever know. I guess it'd help you out a lot if you'd actually talk to someone with a better grasp of empirical procedures, rather than getting your knowledge from hilariously overcomplicated texts. No, I haven't said that, nor do I believe that. Try harder. That doesn't even respond to the thing I said that you're quoting. On August 02 2014 02:29 zulu_nation8 wrote:
what counts as a philosophical question exactly? For example, "what is the nature of water?" used to be a purely philosophical question. I wouldn't want to make a prescriptive claim about what are philosophical questions. A good proxy for the current discussion is anything involving a normative claim, i.e. ethics. We can leave it at that for the purposes of the discussion. It's a good question though. Also note that the question hasn't really gone away, just shifted further back. We no longer ask "what is the nature of water," but it is a valid sort of question to ask "when we speak about matter, what are we really speaking about - i.e. what is our ontology under which we are able to conceive of such things as "atoms" and "energy" (and how to we represent these things to ourselves, metaphorically, since we can't actually think "atom" directly but only in some metaphorical way - so what is the best metaphor that we should use?). It's not a scientific question - science doesn't really do ontology, it just postulates theoretical entities. Philosophy has to take scientific theories about these things as "conditions" (as badiou would say) but doing ontology based on these conditions is not "scientific" but rather philosophical. On August 02 2014 02:33 MoonfireSpam wrote:Another philosophical question: what do you do when there are questions that you cannot answer, but must answer? This is one that I'm particularly interested in. Can't answer this in philosophy speak but in real life in the context of making a difficult diagnosis. You observe as much as you can (X-rays, CT, blood tests - not always with high degrees of probability. Not always available) You try and grasp context (patient history, previous admissions, risk factors - all very subjective stuff) Use past experience (bias) Use pre existing knowledge of others i.e. specialists, text books (also subject to bias) Formulate answer based on above. Screen answer to make sure it passes guidelines (gotta protect your own ass). Give answer and treat based on most likely outcome. Wait with interest to see what happens and repeat from start if required. I'd actually be interested in hearing a philosophy side to that methodology (or maybe there isn't one to be made - also fine). But that's just a question about some scientific fact. That's not the kind of question that I'm interested in. I can leave that to science, I don't care. I'm talking about a question like "What should I do with my life and why?" That's a question which is impossible to answer but which nevertheless must be answered. Then it's not a question that can't be answered <.< More importantly is why dwell on stuff like that (I'm not saying it's pointless, many people benefit from a certain amount of introspection). But like poop, there a point where it becomes diarrhoea and bad for you. Actually I use almost the same approach to life. But it's interesting because there's no right or wrong and everyone has a different take on it. The obvious question back is: Why does that question have to be answered? You just did answer it. You said "there's no right or wrong and everyone has a different take on it." Which is an answer to the question (it happens to be one with which I strenuously disagree).
Well yeah. But there's obviously no "solution" in an emperical sense.
More so is why ask that question? (Obviously for that example there's benefit to be had from introspection, but stuff does reach a point where it becomes pointless (as in "provides no tangable benefit" since we're on the verge of semantics)).
|
Why is why my point is that such questions aren't really things you can investigate empirically.
I've lost track though. Which question is it which you believe is pointless?
edit: oh. "What should I do with my life?"
the problem is you can't NOT ask the question. If you don't think about it, you've just already accepted an answer. But there's always some answer to the question, you can't get away from it, because you are in fact doing something with your life.
edit: the problem is that taking a stance like "we must pass over the questions in silence" is already an answer to the question (and as such is disingenuous and self-refuting).
|
On August 02 2014 03:49 bookwyrm wrote:
Why is why my point is that such questions aren't really things you can investigate empirically.
I've lost track though. Which question is it which you believe is pointless?
edit: oh. "What should I do with my life?"
the problem is you can't NOT ask the question. If you don't think about it, you've just already accepted an answer. But there's always some answer to the question, you can't get away from it, because you are in fact doing something with your life.
edit: the problem is that taking a stance like "we must pass over the questions in silence" is already an answer to the question (and as such is disingenuous and self-refuting).
I think we just agreed then.
That got convoluted fast.
|
On August 02 2014 03:02 bookwyrm wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2014 02:30 GeckoXp wrote:On August 02 2014 01:50 bookwyrm wrote:On August 02 2014 01:47 2Pacalypse- wrote:
However, the most useful way of thinking about scientific theory in its truest sense would be to use the word "fact" in ordinary language. No. Not because of the claim you are trying to make (to give "theory" a more solid epistemological force). But a "fact" is a much dumber thing than a theory. A "fact" is something like "the sun keeps rising." A "theory" has to explain why. If you reduce "theory" to "fact" you make "theory" a much less powerful entity, which is not what you are trying to do here. Following your logic, there's nothing we can ever know. I guess it'd help you out a lot if you'd actually talk to someone with a better grasp of empirical procedures, rather than getting your knowledge from hilariously overcomplicated texts. No, I haven't said that, nor do I believe that. Try harder. That doesn't even respond to the thing I said that you're quoting.
Nor does what you write respond to things others said prior to you. You don't have any clue whatsoever about what the difference between a fact, an observation and a theory is. Argueing with people not having an idea of what they're talking about makes no sense. I hope you at least feel smart.
|
On August 02 2014 04:01 MoonfireSpam wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2014 03:49 bookwyrm wrote:
Why is why my point is that such questions aren't really things you can investigate empirically.
I've lost track though. Which question is it which you believe is pointless?
edit: oh. "What should I do with my life?"
the problem is you can't NOT ask the question. If you don't think about it, you've just already accepted an answer. But there's always some answer to the question, you can't get away from it, because you are in fact doing something with your life.
edit: the problem is that taking a stance like "we must pass over the questions in silence" is already an answer to the question (and as such is disingenuous and self-refuting). I think we just agreed then.
If you say so :D
|
Honestly, at this point the problem with this thread isn't even really about the usefulness of philosophy or science or whathaveyou, but a far more simplistic and banal problem of people not even actually taking any of this actually seriously. If you're citing Dawkins, Harris, and Krauss you're basically showing the world that you don't study any of the relevant material seriously, especially the natural sciences, since you're throwing all your weight behind someone who hasn't done any work in his field for decades and is outdated in evolutionary biology, a charlatan who wrote an awful dissertation and is considered a joke in his field, and someone who talks endlessly on topics he has absolutely no training in and is a disgrace to his field. If the best you can do it constantly and endlessly refer only to these pop culture figures then I just can't take you seriously. It would be funny if it wasn't so exasperating that some of you, who like to have the pretense that you're "defending science and the scientific method" obviously are not scientists in any shape or form. This isn't really a problem of philosophy or science. It's a problem with education, ideological demagoguery, and an absurd lack of respect for real scholarship.
|
Croatia9512 Posts
On August 02 2014 03:38 bookwyrm wrote:
Hmm. well this might be the end of the discussion since you're unwilling to even address what I'm saying and rely on sophomoric protestations about "semantics" (god I hate that word, the last refuge of the uncurious).
I don't know what it is I'm even supposed to address when you first brought up the difference between scientific theory and a fact. I guess there's a difference in definition; fine, I'll agree to that. Does it matter when you try to explain to someone, who is not very interested in these differences, what scientists mean by the word theory? Probably not.
On August 02 2014 03:38 bookwyrm wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2014 03:31 2Pacalypse- wrote:On August 02 2014 03:12 bookwyrm wrote:On August 02 2014 03:07 2Pacalypse- wrote:On August 02 2014 02:16 bookwyrm wrote:On August 02 2014 01:57 2Pacalypse- wrote:On August 02 2014 01:50 bookwyrm wrote:On August 02 2014 01:47 2Pacalypse- wrote:
However, the most useful way of thinking about scientific theory in its truest sense would be to use the word "fact" in ordinary language. No. Not because of the claim you are trying to make (to give "theory" a more solid epistemological force). But a "fact" is a much dumber thing than a theory. A "fact" is something like "the sun keeps rising." A "theory" has to explain why. If you reduce "theory" to "fact" you make "theory" a much less powerful entity, which is not what you are trying to do here. I really don't want to enter a semantics and definition discussion here. I'm just saying when you try to explain what a "scientific theory" is to a common person, the best way is by equating it with a fact. And I'm explaining why that's a bad idea, but you don't want to talk about it, apparently. Don't accuse me of condescension and then go around about what is the "best way to explain to a 'common person.'" My point was that doing so vitiates your own position and makes it weaker. Don't listen to me if you don't care, I guess, I'm trying to help you here. there's nothing more infuriating than a person who makes some claim and then responds to any possible criticism with "I don't want to argue semantics." What that sentence means is "I just wanna say whatever I want and have it be true without thinking about what I'm really saying or defending it against someone who disagrees." I don't understand why people who say the word "semantics" as a rebuttal even talk to other people in the first place. Do you not have a mirror? When I said that I don't want to argue semantics, that's exactly what I meant. When someone says that evolution is just a theory; you correct him by saying that it's a theory in scientific sense of the word, a fact. You can go on explaining to him why it's a fact, but he will, hopefully, understand what you mean by the word fact. But if you tell him it's a fact, you will be telling him an incorrect thing. A theory is not a fact, it's much more interesting than a fact. The theory of evolution is not a fact, it's a theory, don't insult it by calling it a fact. If you try to shore up the epistemological force of "science" by confusing theory with fact you are just engaging in dogmatics and ultimately making your position weaker. If this is not a semantics discussion, I don't know what is. Telling someone that evolution is a fact and then explaining to him why it's a fact seems like a best way to actually give him a notion on what we think by scientific theory. but it doesn't give a notion of what "we" think by scientific theory, because people who actually think about these things know that facts and theories are different things. You aren't actually saying that, what you are TRYING to do is saying that you think that scientific theories are more epistemologically robust than your interlocutor might believe (I probably agree with you about this) the theory of evolution is a good example actually because most people now think that the Neo-Darwinian Synthesis of the 60s is an insufficient theory, that is, people working in evolutionary biology don't believe that they have a complete theory of evolution. It's a fact that organisms change over time, the theory about why this is and how it works is currently incomplete (please note: incomplete, not wrong).
You're really over-complicating this. All I've tried to say is that you can call something like an evolution a fact in everyday speech and it would be fine. While we're on the subject of calling evolution a fact, even one of its biggest popularizer, Richard Dawkins, calls it a fact:
On August 02 2014 03:38 bookwyrm wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2014 03:31 2Pacalypse- wrote:On August 02 2014 03:12 bookwyrm wrote:On August 02 2014 02:16 bookwyrm wrote:On August 02 2014 02:06 2Pacalypse- wrote:On August 02 2014 01:23 bookwyrm wrote:On August 01 2014 18:13 2Pacalypse- wrote:
You somehow think that science can't ask a single philosophical question, when I would argue it's just a way of pursuing knowledge, much like philosophy; it just goes about it by actually going outside and looking at the world. no, "science" can't. Can you give an example? I've argued about this with a lot of people, and nobody has ever been able to give an example. Design me a quick experiment that answers some sort of philosophical question. Please! I didn't say science can answer philosophical questions, just that it can ask them. and I asked for an example, which you didn't give. I didn't expect you to, as nobody ever has, out of the dozens of people who have made this claim and whom I've asked for examples. Why is there something rather than nothing? Is our universe real? Do we have free will? Is there life after death? What is the best moral system? etc right, so now you have to pose experiments which would answer these questions... that's what I asked... you've just listed possible questions... still waiting edit: To stave off the inevitable misunderstanding, let me try to separate two claims: "science can answer philosophical questions." "science can provide useful and interesting knowledge which must be considered when attempting to answer philosophical questions." the first is false. the second is true. edit: Let me just say how therapeutic it is for me to argue about this with you guys, since I've been going crazy pulling my hair out this last year arguing with your complete polar opposites. It's so funny to me how self-evident both sides think their positions are - it's not even possible for the two to communicate. And each side thinks I belong to the other one Don't be a willful idiot please. I've said: "I didn't say science can answer philosophical questions, just that it can ask them." And you've said: "I asked for an example, which you didn't give." And then I gave you an example. You haven't provided an example. You've provided an example of asking certain sorts of questions in English. I want you to give an example of how science might investigate those questions. You haven't. I don't want an example of a philosophical question (which is what you gave), I want an example of science investigating one of those philosophical questions.
I think moving the goalpost expression would be appropriate here...
But anyways, fine, I'll bite. Science is investigating how the universe began. Once/If we ever understand this, we might get a better glimpse into why is there something rather than nothing. Science is also investigating the brain which will, hopefully, help us understand conscience better. Once/If we ever understand it, we might be able to artificially create conscience beings and we would have a much better understanding of free will, or lack thereof. Is there life after death is pretty much already answered by science. Changing our brain chemistry changes our thinking and perception, essentially it changes us, so once the brain dies and rots away there's no room for something to stay after death; this is also tied to the conscience question. Morality is intrinsically tied to the science, because the only way to decide if something is moral is to predict the consequences of its action. I guess it's little harder to determine what should be moral with science, but even there, if you make some presumptions like "living is preferred to dying", "comfort is preferred to suffering" etc, science has a great deal to say.
Please note that these are not definitive things that science alone will answer 100%. It's just an example on how science can ask some of the philosophical questions.
|
not examples. I'm looking for experimental design here. all you've done is profess faith that science will someday answer certain questions, what I want is a very specific example of how you might go about using the scientific method to investigate philosophical questions. I want you to be very specific, that's the point
like, imagine you are writing a "materials and methods" section in a lab report
On August 02 2014 04:28 2Pacalypse- wrote:
if you make some presumptions like "living is preferred to dying", "comfort is preferred to suffering" etc, science has a great deal to say.
lol. "if you assume away the question, the question goes away."
what if I disagree with your presumptions? that's the whole point. Like, it's more complicated than to say "comfort is better than suffering" for all sorts of obvious reasons. I might think that suffering is good because it builds character (i.e. I might be Seneca). I could think that comfort is meaningless without suffering. I could think that mankind deserves suffering because we have sinned against God. That's the whole question I'm trying to point out to you
edit: also, I'm not "moving the goalposts.' I've been trying to get you to do the exact same thing for a few pages now, which you're avoiding. I've been quite consistent in what I'm asking for.
|
On August 02 2014 04:05 GeckoXp wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2014 03:02 bookwyrm wrote:On August 02 2014 02:30 GeckoXp wrote:On August 02 2014 01:50 bookwyrm wrote:On August 02 2014 01:47 2Pacalypse- wrote:
However, the most useful way of thinking about scientific theory in its truest sense would be to use the word "fact" in ordinary language. No. Not because of the claim you are trying to make (to give "theory" a more solid epistemological force). But a "fact" is a much dumber thing than a theory. A "fact" is something like "the sun keeps rising." A "theory" has to explain why. If you reduce "theory" to "fact" you make "theory" a much less powerful entity, which is not what you are trying to do here. Following your logic, there's nothing we can ever know. I guess it'd help you out a lot if you'd actually talk to someone with a better grasp of empirical procedures, rather than getting your knowledge from hilariously overcomplicated texts. No, I haven't said that, nor do I believe that. Try harder. That doesn't even respond to the thing I said that you're quoting. Nor does what you write respond to things others said prior to you. You don't have any clue whatsoever about what the difference between a fact, an observation and a theory is. Argueing with people not having an idea of what they're talking about makes no sense. I hope you at least feel smart.
I think the points that was trying to be made (and very valid) are:
An observation is only as good as your instrumentation / conditions. There may be factors messing with your observations you are unaware of. (as in the example of dropping a rock. It goes "down" but is also moving laterally at the speed of rotation of the Earth - but so are your instruments, so alll you measure is motion of the rock relative to the observer).
A theory is the mechanics you think are behind said observation, however flawed observations can falsely validate theories. (you could use that observation of the rock dropping to "disprove" that the Earth spins).
Because you obviously can't account for the unknown factors, it takes a lot (or should take a lot) for something to become "fact" i.e. a proven theory.
This stuff more applies to things from the last 300 or so years. For example when they found trilobyte fossils at the top of mountains, the two theories were: Mass flooding (popular opinion), Plate tectonics (dismissed for ages). Through further examination and observation of rock types etc. the reverse became the case and the prevailing dogma was broken.
I think the other point is that because you don't know the unknown, you will never know when you have a "complete" understanding however well a current theory is supported.
That is one of the values of philosophy (but has now sortof become "scientific method").
|
Croatia9512 Posts
On August 02 2014 04:22 koreasilver wrote:
Honestly, at this point the problem with this thread isn't even really about the usefulness of philosophy or science or whathaveyou, but a far more simplistic and banal problem of people not even actually taking any of this actually seriously. If you're citing Dawkins, Harris, and Krauss you're basically showing the world that you don't study any of the relevant material seriously, especially the natural sciences, since you're throwing all your weight behind someone who hasn't done any work in his field for decades and is outdated in evolutionary biology, a charlatan who wrote an awful dissertation and is considered a joke in his field, and someone who talks endlessly on topics he has absolutely no training in and is a disgrace to his field. If the best you can do it constantly and endlessly refer only to these pop culture figures then I just can't take you seriously. It would be funny if it wasn't so exasperating that some of you, who like to have the pretense that you're "defending science and the scientific method" obviously are not scientists in any shape or form. This isn't really a problem of philosophy or science. It's a problem with education, ideological demagoguery, and an absurd lack of respect for real scholarship.
I'm sorry we offended your highness up there on the throne surrounded by quotations of obscure philosophers. Us normal plebs, who are denied higher education in intricacies of philosophy, have to rely on pop culture figures to guide us.
Nevermind the actual arguments being presented, unless you cite an authority on these issues, you're not taking it serious enough for me to even consider arguing with!
|
you can just google karl popper + falsifiability to see why theories aren't facts, it's not some secret elitist knowledge, but rather should be required reading for anyone who claims they know what the scientific method is.
And you shouldn't get offended when you get called out on something very basic, if you don't understand the difference between a fact and a theory, you shouldn't be forming opinions in the first place. Literally the first lesson in my high school physics class was "theories can never be proven."
On August 02 2014 04:35 MoonfireSpam wrote:
I think the points that was trying to be made (and very valid) are:
An observation is only as good as your instrumentation / conditions. There may be factors messing with your observations you are unaware of. (as in the example of dropping a rock. It goes "down" but is also moving laterally at the speed of rotation of the Earth - but so are your instruments, so alll you measure is motion of the rock relative to the observer).
A theory is the mechanics you think are behind said observation, however flawed observations can falsely validate theories. (you could use that observation of the rock dropping to "disprove" that the Earth spins).
Because you obviously can't account for the unknown factors, it takes a lot (or should take a lot) for something to become "fact" i.e. a proven theory.
The observation that a rock drops straight down is "correct," not wrongly observed. It's a natural interpretation of what we see according to common sense. But the description of "straight down" takes on different meanings within newtonian physics compared to aristotelian physics, specifically in relative vs. absolute motion.
They both explain the same phenomenon differently, but Newton's can explain stuff Aristotle's couldn't.
|
Croatia9512 Posts
On August 02 2014 04:33 bookwyrm wrote:not examples. I'm looking for experimental design here. all you've done is profess faith that science will someday answer certain questions, what I want is a very specific example of how you might go about using the scientific method to investigate philosophical questions. I want you to be very specific, that's the point like, imagine you are writing a "materials and methods" section in a lab report Show nested quote +On August 02 2014 04:28 2Pacalypse- wrote:
if you make some presumptions like "living is preferred to dying", "comfort is preferred to suffering" etc, science has a great deal to say. lol. "if you assume away the question, the question goes away." what if I disagree with your presumptions? that's the whole point. Like, it's more complicated than to say "comfort is better than suffering" for all sorts of obvious reasons. I might think that suffering is good because it builds character (i.e. I might be Seneca). I could think that comfort is meaningless without suffering. I could think that mankind deserves suffering because we have sinned against God. That's the whole question I'm trying to point out to you edit: also, I'm not "moving the goalposts.' I've been trying to get you to do the exact same thing for a few pages now, which you're avoiding. I've been quite consistent in what I'm asking for.
Are you fucking serious?
I said it quite clearly: "I didn't say science can answer philosophical questions, just that it can ask them." Asking a question is very easy. I even gave you some examples of asking them.
Now you want me to write a fucking dissertation on answering them?
Oh why did I bite for this bait... now that's a good philosophical question.
|
Croatia9512 Posts
On August 02 2014 04:44 zulu_nation8 wrote:
you can just google karl popper + falsifiability to see why theories aren't facts, it's not some secret elitist knowledge, but rather should be required reading for anyone who claims they know what the scientific method is.
And you shouldn't get offended when you get called out on something very basic, if you don't understand the difference between a fact and a theory, you shouldn't be forming opinions in the first place. Literally the first lesson in my high school physics class was "theories can never be proven."
I said specifically "although nothing is proven right in science, rather more likely". And I never said that theories are facts; just that you can call scientific theory a fact in everyday language and no one would blame or call you out on it (except here it seems).
Seriously, it's like you focus on the most miniscule things you can find just so you can one up someone, and purposefully ignore what was obviously meant by it. Is this what it's like in a philosophy class? I would blew my brains out if it is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
