Nemesis Juggernaut responds to Taz:
quote:
quote:
Just because we can't tell what's right doesn't mean we can't tell what's wrong.
That makes no sense.
Yes, it does. It's a common outcome of logic: You may be able to show that A <> B, but that doesn't mean you can show that A = C.
As a simplistic example: I can taste something and definitely tell that you it isn't salt but still be unable to tell you what it is.
This is the way science works: We can never tell when we're right but we can definitely tell when we're wrong.
Again, look at the history of kinematics. Aristotelian physics certainly seemed right: Objects at rest remain at rest while objects in motion come to rest. We couldn't prove it right, but we eventually showed it to be wrong. Newton came along and showed that objects at rest remain at rest but objects in motion remain in motion unless acted on by an outside force.
And then Einstein came along and showed that even that wasn't true. There's no such thing as "at rest." It only makes sense from a relative point of view. Newton envisioned a linear world and Einstein showed that to be wrong.
That doesn't mean we know that Einstein is right. It certainly seems to be right, but that isn't good enough. Science is an observational process and it is impossible to make every observation. We might be absolutely right with our current model of kinematics, but we'll never know for sure.
All it takes is one observation to show that we're wrong.
There will never be enough observations to show that we're right.
The best we can hope for is "accurate given all information we currently have."
quote:
But knowing one will automatically give to the answer to the other.
Incorrect. The history of Incompleteness Theorems show this to be false.
Godel showed that if we assumed the size of the continuum was equal to Aleph-one, then no contradiction of the axioms of set theory arise.
Well, that means it's true, right? If you can't make a contradiction, then it must be true, right?
Not so fast...Cohen later showed that if we assumed the size of the continuum was not equal to Aleph-one, then no contradiction of the axioms of set theory arise.
Well, now we're in a pickle: Assuming it's true doesn't lead to a contradiction but neither does assuming that it's false.
It's not enough to show what it is not (except under unique circumstances which I hope you can figure out on your own by now.)
quote:
So it seems that you aren't sure what is real or what is not real, in which case, you would essentially be promoting nihilism or perhaps even solipsism.
Not at all. Just because you don't know what is real doesn't mean you think nothing is.
Rrhain
Thank you for your submission to
Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
™ Version 4.2
