|
Author
|
Topic: Scientific Knowledge
|
Panda
Member (Idle past 3734 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: 10-04-2010
|
Re: Is the Scientific Approach The Same As The "Open Minded Skeptic" Approach?
RAZD writes: Some "Untestable Propositions" may be ignored, yes. Particularly when the fall in the "so what" or "known fictional" category or when they fall outside the a priori assumptions. Straggler writes: RAZ is subjectively picking and choosing which untestable notions to reject, which to treat as some sort of axioms and which to demand his pointless brand of absolute agnosticism towards.
*nods* I think it is normally called "making it up as you go along".
Always remember: QUIDQUID LATINE DICTUM SIT ALTUM VIDITUR Science flies you into space; religion flies you into buildings.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 214 by Straggler, posted 09-29-2011 1:36 PM | | Straggler has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 235 by Straggler, posted 09-30-2011 3:11 PM | | Panda has seen this message but not replied |
|
Panda
Member (Idle past 3734 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: 10-04-2010
|
Re: Is Science Logical?
Straggler writes: Hogwart's Hypothesis xongsmith writes: Dead twice, because it is a fiction you made up and fictions are known to be off topic; and also dead because it would imply that a significant body of substantiated objective evidence is LYING to J.K.Rowling and the world at large. Out it goes.
Again with the assumptions. Perhaps you could provide the evidence that Lord Valdemort is fictional? (But please don't post any argumentum ad populums. People believing something is true is not evidence - despite what RAZD thinks.)
Straggler writes: Last Thursdayism xongsmith writes: Dead because it would imply that significant body of substantiated objective evidence is LYING to us. Out it goes.
Incorrectly interpreting reality is not lying. If a detective sees a man holding a smoking gun and assumes he fired it: the data is not lying. The detective is simply wrong. You are assigning an intelligence/intent which is not present in LastThursdayism. Back in it goes!
Straggler writes: ethereal salamanders xongsmith writes: Did you make this one up? I can't digger that, but assuming the creator of this concept is not going to be forthcoming, does this proposition imply any previous evidence is LYING? E&M is one of most most exhaustively explained subjects of the various branches of science. If there is something about this that would imply E & M is lying, then out it goes. If not, then it is different from the previous ones. Shove off on to another table for a likely later dismissal by some other means.
'Shove off on to another table'? So: your way to deal with it is to place it 'out of sight'? And again, you are claiming an intent that doesn't exist. Evidence doesn't lie.
Straggler writes: the Hindu Hypothesis xongsmith writes: Does this imply anywhere that any existing scientific evidence is LYING? Not that I know of. Shove off on to another table for a likely later dismissal by some other means.
Again: you can't argue against the claim so you 'hide' the evidence. Please try again, Xongsmith.
Always remember: QUIDQUID LATINE DICTUM SIT ALTUM VIDITUR Science flies you into space; religion flies you into buildings.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 246 by xongsmith, posted 10-01-2011 2:46 AM | | xongsmith has replied |
|
Panda
Member (Idle past 3734 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: 10-04-2010
|
|
Message 254 of 377 (635745)
10-01-2011 6:16 AM
|
Reply to: Message 252 by Chuck77
10-01-2011 5:29 AM
|
|
Re: Is Science Logical?
Chuck77 writes: So, where do you place yourself concerning Lord V? - I am a 6 on the scale.
In regard to the 'Hogwart's Hypothesis': I am a 6 on the scale too. But, like you, I am happy to disregard unevidenced ideas (e.g. Dumbledore magically implanted JK Rowling with knowledge of Harry Potter's real adventures in such a way that even the author herself thinks that her writings are works of fiction when in fact they are magically inspired historical accounts).
Chuck77 writes: RAZD is a 6
RAZD writes: Nope, for the same reason I have not been a 6 for a single hypothetical scenario that has been posted since the beginning of this thread. I have to wonder when this information will actually sink in.
So...have you not been reading the posts you have been cheering? Edited by Panda, : No reason given. Edited by Panda, : No reason given. Edited by Panda, : No reason given.
Always remember: QUIDQUID LATINE DICTUM SIT ALTUM VIDITUR Science flies you into space; religion flies you into buildings.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 252 by Chuck77, posted 10-01-2011 5:29 AM | | Chuck77 has not replied |
|
Panda
Member (Idle past 3734 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: 10-04-2010
|
|
|
Message 256 of 377 (635753)
10-01-2011 6:57 AM
|
Reply to: Message 255 by Chuck77
10-01-2011 6:53 AM
|
|
Re: Is Science Logical?
Chuck77 writes: RAZD isn't interested in the Dawkins scale so we'll use theirs.
Sort of correct... RAZD rewrote Dawkin's scale:
Message 141So ... is he a 6?
Chuck77 writes: on this scale being that it is widley accepted as fact that he is a made up fictional character.
Argumentum ad populum is not evidence. Why does this need to be repeatedly pointed out? Edited by Panda, : No reason given.
Always remember: QUIDQUID LATINE DICTUM SIT ALTUM VIDITUR Science flies you into space; religion flies you into buildings.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 255 by Chuck77, posted 10-01-2011 6:53 AM | | Chuck77 has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 258 by Chuck77, posted 10-01-2011 7:21 AM | | Panda has replied |
|
Panda
Member (Idle past 3734 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: 10-04-2010
|
|
|
Message 259 of 377 (635757)
10-01-2011 7:52 AM
|
Reply to: Message 258 by Chuck77
10-01-2011 7:21 AM
|
|
Re: Is Science Logical?
Chuck77 writes: Nope. RAZD is a #7 here, in regards to Lord V being a real SN being.
quote:
7. Absolute skepticism - {X} is known to be not true, with no uncertainty(a) (a) - logically invalid positions (unless supported by substantiating tested objective empirical evidence - strong conviction in the validity of evolution is based on the massive amount of objective evidence and testing).
Which would be fine, but the "Hogwort's hypothesis" is untestable. So how is there "substantiating tested objective empirical evidence" of an untestable proposition? But let's avoid guessing what RAZD thinks. Instead, let's see what he says:
bluegenes writes: ... but you'd probably treat [the claim that there is an invisible killer bogeyman in your bedroom] as a high "6" on the Dawkins scale, ... RAZD writes: Nope, for the same reason I have not been a 6 for a single hypothetical scenario that has been posted since the beginning of this thread. I have to wonder when this information will actually sink in.
So - RAZD's positon in regards to the hypothetical scenario "Hogwort's hypothesis" would not be a 6 (or a 7). He would be agnostic about it. It is not disproved or proved. Edited by Panda, : No reason given.
Always remember: QUIDQUID LATINE DICTUM SIT ALTUM VIDITUR Science flies you into space; religion flies you into buildings.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 258 by Chuck77, posted 10-01-2011 7:21 AM | | Chuck77 has not replied |
|
Panda
Member (Idle past 3734 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: 10-04-2010
|
|
|
Message 263 of 377 (635775)
10-01-2011 12:24 PM
|
Reply to: Message 261 by Straggler
10-01-2011 9:47 AM
|
|
Re: Straggler still digs in his heels and still refuses to look the actual replies
Straggler writes: You aren't going to explicitly place yourself on your own scale with regard to the untestable "Hogwarts Hypothesis" are you?
It is like you have asked RAZD if he likes cheese and in reply he shouts "I LIKE JAM!!!". Clearly RAZD realises that he can't allow himself to actually answer your question.
Always remember: QUIDQUID LATINE DICTUM SIT ALTUM VIDITUR Science flies you into space; religion flies you into buildings.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 261 by Straggler, posted 10-01-2011 9:47 AM | | Straggler has not replied |
|
Panda
Member (Idle past 3734 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: 10-04-2010
|
Re: Is Science Logical?
xongsmith writes: There is only one assumption I am willing to concede at this point: substantiated objective scientific evidence is actually telling us about the real world and not LYING. People can be wrong. Evidence never lies.
xongsmith writes: Last Thursdayism would require that all this evidence is a LIE
Nope. Not a lie. Just incorrectly interpreted. Back in it goes.
xongsmith writes: Silly silly bear...
It seems you now think I am a bear. I am not.
xongsmith writes: Are you thinking I'm arguing against Straggler's claim or bluegenes' claim?
TBH, I can't tell if you are drunk when replying.
Always remember: QUIDQUID LATINE DICTUM SIT ALTUM VIDITUR Science flies you into space; religion flies you into buildings.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 270 by xongsmith, posted 10-01-2011 5:54 PM | | xongsmith has replied |
|
Panda
Member (Idle past 3734 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: 10-04-2010
(2)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 273 of 377 (635800)
10-01-2011 6:38 PM
|
Reply to: Message 269 by RAZD
10-01-2011 5:09 PM
|
|
Re: the light slowly seeps into the tightly shut eyes ...
RAZD writes: I LIKE JAM!!!
Always remember: QUIDQUID LATINE DICTUM SIT ALTUM VIDITUR Science flies you into space; religion flies you into buildings.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 269 by RAZD, posted 10-01-2011 5:09 PM | | RAZD has seen this message but not replied |
|
Panda
Member (Idle past 3734 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: 10-04-2010
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: Is Science Logical?
xongsmith writes: Neither can I, but if I was you I would put my money on "drunk".
Ok. I'll leave you to continue quoting and replying to your own posts.
Always remember: QUIDQUID LATINE DICTUM SIT ALTUM VIDITUR Science flies you into space; religion flies you into buildings.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 274 by xongsmith, posted 10-01-2011 8:46 PM | | xongsmith has replied |
|
Panda
Member (Idle past 3734 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: 10-04-2010
|
|
|
Message 279 of 377 (635847)
10-02-2011 7:58 AM
|
Reply to: Message 276 by xongsmith
10-01-2011 10:46 PM
|
|
Re: Is Science Logical?
To quote Omnivorous's previous response to you (and I am starting to think it is the correct response for most of your posts in this thread): quote:
Err...umm... Thanks for the reply, have a nice day.
Always remember: QUIDQUID LATINE DICTUM SIT ALTUM VIDITUR Science flies you into space; religion flies you into buildings.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 276 by xongsmith, posted 10-01-2011 10:46 PM | | xongsmith has not replied |
|
Panda
Member (Idle past 3734 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: 10-04-2010
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: Is Science Logical?
Straggler writes: Does the fact that a given proposition is untestable preclude a de-facto atheist stance (i.e. 6 on the Dawkins scale) from being rationally taken towards that proposition?
Preclude the stance: "I don't know for certain but I think it is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that it is not there."? My answer: No - it does not preclude it. I think that if something is untestable then it remains improbable. Any evidence which could make it more probable doesn't (by definition) exist. To quote Christopher Hitchens:
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."I, also, am happy to dismiss concepts which have no evidence.
Always remember: QUIDQUID LATINE DICTUM SIT ALTUM VIDITUR Science flies you into space; religion flies you into buildings.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 283 by Straggler, posted 10-02-2011 6:17 PM | | Straggler has not replied |
|
Panda
Member (Idle past 3734 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: 10-04-2010
|
|
|
Message 298 of 377 (635934)
10-03-2011 6:00 AM
|
Reply to: Message 296 by RAZD
10-03-2011 2:20 AM
|
|
Re: How about a new thread? (or two)
RAZD writes: The major (deadly imho) flaw in the Dawkins scale is that it is subjective. It also tends to be self aggrandizing, imho (look at me, I'm a 6.99999, I'm baaaad ... ) ... Certainly it is not an objective scale, as evidenced by the long drawn out debates on how you can rationally be a 6 rather than a 5 when these positions are not defined objectively. This is why I have thrown out my modified version in favor of the Concept Confidence scale. RAZD writes: I refuse to voice an opinion on cheese; cheese is not the correct food to ask about. Now: back to jam...
Always remember: QUIDQUID LATINE DICTUM SIT ALTUM VIDITUR Science flies you into space; religion flies you into buildings.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 296 by RAZD, posted 10-03-2011 2:20 AM | | RAZD has seen this message but not replied |
|
Panda
Member (Idle past 3734 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: 10-04-2010
|
|
|
Message 310 of 377 (636023)
10-03-2011 6:24 PM
|
Reply to: Message 309 by RAZD
10-03-2011 5:59 PM
|
|
Re: Straggler's tricky dick question
Zen Deist writes: I kinda doubt that any atheist here would automatically take a "6" position on the untestable concept that there are no gods ...
You doubt that atheists would take the de-facto atheist position on the existence of gods?
Always remember: QUIDQUID LATINE DICTUM SIT ALTUM VIDITUR Science flies you into space; religion flies you into buildings.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 309 by RAZD, posted 10-03-2011 5:59 PM | | RAZD has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 315 by RAZD, posted 10-03-2011 9:08 PM | | Panda has replied |
|
Panda
Member (Idle past 3734 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: 10-04-2010
|
|
|
Message 314 of 377 (636070)
10-03-2011 9:00 PM
|
Reply to: Message 313 by Buzsaw
10-03-2011 8:48 PM
|
|
Re: Scientific Knowledge In The Necessary Absence of Certainty
Buz writes: the UN and calls for a NEW World Order at a time when marks and numbers are being used as currency
When did we start using marks and numbers as currency? (Please supply the decade (e.g. 1940's) - I don't need an exact date.) {abe}It's off-topic. Maybe you would be so kind as to PM me the answer? Edited by Panda, : No reason given.
Always remember: QUIDQUID LATINE DICTUM SIT ALTUM VIDITUR Science flies you into space; religion flies you into buildings.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 313 by Buzsaw, posted 10-03-2011 8:48 PM | | Buzsaw has not replied |
|
Panda
Member (Idle past 3734 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: 10-04-2010
|
|
|
Message 317 of 377 (636082)
10-03-2011 9:55 PM
|
Reply to: Message 315 by RAZD
10-03-2011 9:08 PM
|
|
Re: english 101
RAZD writes: the untestable concept is "there are not gods"
Ah - I didn't realise you intended there to be a double negative.
RAZD writes: always taking a ⟨6⟩ on any untestable concept means taking a ⟨6⟩ on a ⟨6⟩ untestable concept ... how does that work out for you?
Could you be specific about who exactly you are mis-representing?
Always remember: QUIDQUID LATINE DICTUM SIT ALTUM VIDITUR Science flies you into space; religion flies you into buildings.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 315 by RAZD, posted 10-03-2011 9:08 PM | | RAZD has seen this message but not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2