Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Scientific Knowledge
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


(1)
Message 36 of 377 (633770)
09-16-2011 11:01 AM


Let me get this straight, we are now arguing over what constitutes knowledge? I am a pragmatist/empiricist. If Straggler drops his pen I do not KNOW it will fall to the desk, no more than I can KNOW anything. We cant KNOW. However, we can with confidence live our lives with the present KNOWLEDGE that there is order and predictabilty in the physical laws that matter seems to obey. David Hume deduced that our knowledge of reality is based on two things:
Our empirical experience of existence, as of right now, the act of perceiving itself (in the present tense only).
Axioms, from which we could derive and conclude whatever we like about reality depending on what axioms we choose.
http://www.phy.duke.edu/.../Beowulf/axioms/axioms/node4.html

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Straggler, posted 09-16-2011 1:36 PM 1.61803 has replied

1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


(1)
Message 98 of 377 (634678)
09-23-2011 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Straggler
09-16-2011 1:36 PM


Re: Axiomatic Approach To Reality
Hello Straggler,
Strag writes:
Do you really claim no more "knowledge" regarding one than the other? Really?
I made no claims of knowledge whatsoever. When doing research science often attaches confidence values to the variables. It is of course a matter of how much confidence one places on the supposed knowledge eh? In other words I have more confidence your pen will drop at the speed of 9.8m/s square. But little confidence you have a soul. I do not KNOW you do not have a soul no more than I know your pen wont quantum tunnel though your desk.
Strag writes:
On what basis do you have "confidence" that the physical laws "matter seems to obey" will continue into the future..
On the basis that historically the physical laws agree with that which has been observed. However the past may not actually exist. Time may be ever accumulating fractions of the now, and we only associate a past because temporally we make those assumptions.
Strag writes:
.. or that your memory of these laws is even based on reality rather than false memories of the type described by the 1 second universe proposition described in the OP?
I am a creature that derives my existence from my sensory perception. If I exist in a universe that is manifested by a computer simulation then how is that different than my existence in this natural universe? If two things are identical in every aspect then there is no difference.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Straggler, posted 09-16-2011 1:36 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Straggler, posted 09-23-2011 11:31 AM 1.61803 has seen this message but not replied

1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 195 of 377 (635318)
09-28-2011 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by Straggler
09-28-2011 2:15 PM


Re: A quick note to Zen (and Xong)
John Smith has some Golden plates he would like to pawn.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by Straggler, posted 09-28-2011 2:15 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 290 by Straggler, posted 10-02-2011 6:21 PM 1.61803 has replied

1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 302 of 377 (635963)
10-03-2011 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 290 by Straggler
10-02-2011 6:21 PM


Re: A quick note to Zen (and Xong)
Question: - 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?
1.61803 answers No.
It is not imo irrational to take such a stance. But such a position must be based on individual criteria case by case basis imo.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by Straggler, posted 10-02-2011 6:21 PM Straggler has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 308 by xongsmith, posted 10-03-2011 5:51 PM 1.61803 has replied

1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


(2)
Message 330 of 377 (636278)
10-05-2011 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 308 by xongsmith
10-03-2011 5:51 PM


Re: Straggler's trick question
Xongsmith writes:
So you also are agreeing with me that a few Straggling cases could be a Yes instead of a blanket No on all cases? And who knows what they might be either, before Straggler asks any of us which ones?
Yes, I believe that the hogwart theory is suspect because I googled Stragglers Voldemort theory and got nothing but EVC as a reference.
I realize this is Stagglers point, that anyone at anytime can just make something up. But each claim must be examined individually and not just dismissed outright imo.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 308 by xongsmith, posted 10-03-2011 5:51 PM xongsmith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 332 by Straggler, posted 10-05-2011 11:58 AM 1.61803 has seen this message but not replied

1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 363 of 377 (636539)
10-07-2011 10:29 AM


we can confidently go about our lives with the knowledge that pens will drop at 9.8m/s/s .

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024