|
but theories... are not facts, and no respectable scientist would think they are.
|
On August 02 2014 04:51 2Pacalypse- wrote:Show nested quote +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 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?
completely
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.
so now you are a personification of Science? You just asked questions in English, not science. Show me how science can ask the questions. In order to do that, you have to give some sort of hint of what an experiment would look like (otherwise, it's not "science"). Experiments are how you ask questions in science. If you don't have an experiment, it's not "science asking questions"
|
I thought everybody who has done some kind of scientific curriculum had huard about Popper. At least where I've been, almost everybody has.
Btw, i thought of an utility of philosophe of science, something it has tried to do : defend science against its ennemies, intelligent design for instance. If we had left that only to New Atheism, I fear the debate would be gong even worse than it is... Thank god the supreme court asked epistemologists what they thought back then.
Also, this thread goes wayyyyy too fast.
|
Croatia9510 Posts
On August 02 2014 05:05 zulu_nation8 wrote:
but theories... are not facts, and no respectable scientist would think they are.
Good thing we have our respectable TL poster to tell us what respectable scientists think.
Here, just read this article and you can see there are different definitions for things like fact, theory, scientific fact, scientific theory etc.
And this is exactly the semantics discussion that I did not want to get into.
On August 02 2014 05:09 bookwyrm wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2014 04:51 2Pacalypse- wrote: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 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? completely Show nested quote +
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.
so now you are a personification of Science? You just asked questions in English, not science. Show me how science can ask the questions. In order to do that, you have to give some sort of hint of what an experiment would look like (otherwise, it's not "science"). Experiments are how you ask questions in science. If you don't have an experiment, it's not "science asking questions"
Fine, I guess I should've used "scientists" instead of "science". You win. I'm glad we got to the bottom of this.
|
oh ok i was not aware there is a definition of fact that says it could be false. Sounds like a useful distinction.
|
Croatia9510 Posts
Didn't you learn in your first lesson in high school physics class that "theories can never be proven"? How would you go about proving the fact then and why do you think the same rule doesn't apply to them?
|
On August 02 2014 04:35 MoonfireSpam wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2014 04:05 GeckoXp 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. 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").
No, he did not write this, and I assume he didn't mean this either. This is a stereotypical discussion in gaming boards, he desperately wants to be right, probably because he got mocked for his views by (natural) scientists somewhen in his life. I can totally relate to that, yet it doesn't help it.
Someone already pointed it out, there are tight definitions of what a theory is, what is counted as observation, how any observation can be interpreted and so on and so forth. This is the basic stuff you get taught and learn from day 1. He completely throws around terms, which he doesn't understand, then proceeds to to mock people, who're not used to discussing topics like this in a foreign language. Obviously, we can not help but lose here. Not saying I have experience in this field either, or that I'd be good enough to really explain the difference between having assumptions and creating a theory, or stating a deterministic (natural) law. This is a long way and he portrays "science" as static, stubborn approach.
Thing is, science itself is a very vague term. He quotes sources about Galilei, Kepler and others, yet I wouldn't classify them as scientists in a modern sense. Science, its methods and experiments changed and will change in the future. It's a self reflecting process. If it wasn't, the hysteria about not being able to rely on observations, rather than how they should be interpreted, would actually have a point. The way he presents his, whatever it is, let's call them theories, sound as if there's no way at all to approach any topic in any way. No assumption would be possible, there'd be no starting point, nor any reason in pursuing futher knowledge, because "we're too limited".
There's the off change I did not understand his posts or the context; however, that'd be his problem, not mine. The second you are forced to derail by quoting ancient language, you lost.
|
by "he" do you mean me? because you're both confusing me with other people and misrepresenting my position. do other people think gecko is saying things that make sense? gecko doesn't really say anything he justs insults people. and he thinks that zulu and I are the same person I think
On August 02 2014 05:32 2Pacalypse- wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2014 05:05 zulu_nation8 wrote:
but theories... are not facts, and no respectable scientist would think they are. Good thing we have our respectable TL poster to tell us what respectable scientists think. Here, just read this article and you can see there are different definitions for things like fact, theory, scientific fact, scientific theory etc. And this is exactly the semantics discussion that I did not want to get into. Show nested quote +On August 02 2014 05:09 bookwyrm wrote:On August 02 2014 04:51 2Pacalypse- wrote: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 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? completely
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.
so now you are a personification of Science? You just asked questions in English, not science. Show me how science can ask the questions. In order to do that, you have to give some sort of hint of what an experiment would look like (otherwise, it's not "science"). Experiments are how you ask questions in science. If you don't have an experiment, it's not "science asking questions" Fine, I guess I should've used "scientists" instead of "science". You win. I'm glad we got to the bottom of this.
but you recognize that not all things that scientists do is science, right? like, when scientists take a shit, it's not science, it's pooping. when scientists do philosophy, that doesn't make it science. If you're going to agree about THIS, i'm not sure why you were arguing with me.
|
Croatia9510 Posts
On August 02 2014 06:18 bookwyrm wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2014 05:32 2Pacalypse- wrote:On August 02 2014 05:05 zulu_nation8 wrote:
but theories... are not facts, and no respectable scientist would think they are. Good thing we have our respectable TL poster to tell us what respectable scientists think. Here, just read this article and you can see there are different definitions for things like fact, theory, scientific fact, scientific theory etc. And this is exactly the semantics discussion that I did not want to get into. On August 02 2014 05:09 bookwyrm wrote:On August 02 2014 04:51 2Pacalypse- wrote: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 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? completely
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.
so now you are a personification of Science? You just asked questions in English, not science. Show me how science can ask the questions. In order to do that, you have to give some sort of hint of what an experiment would look like (otherwise, it's not "science"). Experiments are how you ask questions in science. If you don't have an experiment, it's not "science asking questions" Fine, I guess I should've used "scientists" instead of "science". You win. I'm glad we got to the bottom of this. but you recognize that not all things that scientists do is science, right? like, when scientists take a shit, it's not science, it's pooping. when scientists do philosophy, that doesn't make it science. If you're going to agree about THIS, i'm not sure why you were arguing with me.
Sure, I'll agree to that.
But will you agree that some things that were considered philosophical issues in the past are now part of some branch of science and do you agree that will continue to happen in the future?
EDIT: Here's a good discussion between a philosopher and a scientist similar to what we've been arguing about: http://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/sep/09/science-philosophy-debate-julian-baggini-lawrence-krauss
(quick, click on it and base your opinion on the actual arguments presented before I'm accused of citing pop culture figures!)
|
On August 02 2014 06:56 2Pacalypse- wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2014 06:18 bookwyrm wrote:On August 02 2014 05:32 2Pacalypse- wrote:On August 02 2014 05:05 zulu_nation8 wrote:
but theories... are not facts, and no respectable scientist would think they are. Good thing we have our respectable TL poster to tell us what respectable scientists think. Here, just read this article and you can see there are different definitions for things like fact, theory, scientific fact, scientific theory etc. And this is exactly the semantics discussion that I did not want to get into. On August 02 2014 05:09 bookwyrm wrote:On August 02 2014 04:51 2Pacalypse- wrote: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 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? completely
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.
so now you are a personification of Science? You just asked questions in English, not science. Show me how science can ask the questions. In order to do that, you have to give some sort of hint of what an experiment would look like (otherwise, it's not "science"). Experiments are how you ask questions in science. If you don't have an experiment, it's not "science asking questions" Fine, I guess I should've used "scientists" instead of "science". You win. I'm glad we got to the bottom of this. but you recognize that not all things that scientists do is science, right? like, when scientists take a shit, it's not science, it's pooping. when scientists do philosophy, that doesn't make it science. If you're going to agree about THIS, i'm not sure why you were arguing with me. Sure, I'll agree to that. But will you agree that some things that were considered philosophical issues in the past are now part of some branch of science and do you agree that will continue to happen in the future?
sure, that's obvious. however in most cases I would argue that the philosophical question has merely been pushed back and not eliminated. or has changed forms in some way. or has imploded upon itself opening up several more philosophical questions in its wake. but there's no way you're going to be able to proceed from an existential claim to a universal claim of this type (i.e. to proceed from "there is an instance in which P problems have become S problems" to "all P problems will eventually become S problems") - it's at best undecidable (but actually quite obviously false).
|
On August 02 2014 05:41 2Pacalypse- wrote:
Didn't you learn in your first lesson in high school physics class that "theories can never be proven"? How would you go about proving the fact then and why do you think the same rule doesn't apply to them?
the statement "theories can never be proven" is not a theory but a logical necessity, if a theory is not falsifiable then it's not a scientific theory because you can't empirically test it and hence has no place in science.
|
On August 02 2014 05:50 GeckoXp wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2014 04:35 MoonfireSpam wrote:On August 02 2014 04:05 GeckoXp 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. 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"). No, he did not write this, and I assume he didn't mean this either. This is a stereotypical discussion in gaming boards, he desperately wants to be right, probably because he got mocked for his views by (natural) scientists somewhen in his life. I can totally relate to that, yet it doesn't help it. Someone already pointed it out, there are tight definitions of what a theory is, what is counted as observation, how any observation can be interpreted and so on and so forth. This is the basic stuff you get taught and learn from day 1. He completely throws around terms, which he doesn't understand, then proceeds to to mock people, who're not used to discussing topics like this in a foreign language. Obviously, we can not help but lose here. Not saying I have experience in this field either, or that I'd be good enough to really explain the difference between having assumptions and creating a theory, or stating a deterministic (natural) law. This is a long way and he portrays "science" as static, stubborn approach. Thing is, science itself is a very vague term. He quotes sources about Galilei, Kepler and others, yet I wouldn't classify them as scientists in a modern sense. Science, its methods and experiments changed and will change in the future. It's a self reflecting process. If it wasn't, the hysteria about not being able to rely on observations, rather than how they should be interpreted, would actually have a point. The way he presents his, whatever it is, let's call them theories, sound as if there's no way at all to approach any topic in any way. No assumption would be possible, there'd be no starting point, nor any reason in pursuing futher knowledge, because "we're too limited". There's the off change I did not understand his posts or the context; however, that'd be his problem, not mine. The second you are forced to derail by quoting ancient language, you lost.
Can you point out which terms I don't understand and where I used foreign languages?
|
I know i'm not playing fair;;;;; lollolooo i've have the plassure and delight to talk to the people that i've looked up to; that i loved;
If you are not here mate, then : GET FUCKED!
|
i cn get "in " any time i want and piss on the non-scientific method
|
I think you're confusing this with the drunk thread.
on the other hand maybe not. in uino sophia
|
On August 02 2014 04:42 2Pacalypse- wrote:Show nested quote +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 THE NATURAL SCIENCES, 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!
There, I fixed it for you; better now? I wasn't even talking about philosophical scholarship in the post. And yes, I'm not going to take you seriously enough to even argue with. This is the same problem that plague(d) the economics threads and cause(d) endless headache for the actual economics students on this forum because of idiot gold-standard touting libertarians, who would ceaselessly link to youtube hacks and conspiratorial nonsense like the Zeitgeist series and other assorted Austrian crap, or leftists, for who the extent of their economic education was reading chapters of Naomi Klein.
|
On August 02 2014 05:05 zulu_nation8 wrote:
but theories... are not facts, and no respectable scientist would think they are.
BUT WHAT IF WE ARE MATE>>>>>>>>> WHAT IF WE ARE..............
|
i am keeping you forever and forever and fore-always
|
|
|
it's in the way you wanted me....
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
