|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Science: A Method not a Source | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
CS writes:
No. I asked how the conclusion that the world would end if people weren't sacrificed could be arrived at through logic, reason and reality. Jar was saying that imagination is one of the components of reason, logic and reality. You asked how they could come to it without imagination. You asked both...
And can you explain how a conclusion such as the one that the world will end if no human sacrifice is made originates as a result of "reason, logic and reality"?
I am struggling to see how this conclusion can have arisen without a healthy dose of human imagination thrown in- Can you enlighten me? But imagination is part of reason, logic and reality. He was obviously responding to the bolded question.
CS writes: Being wrong doesn't mean he didn't use them. And of course there's some imagination in there, but that doesn't mean he didn't use them either. Why do you think he didn't? I don't. Then your questions don't make any sense.
CS writes: I dunno, I suppose I could, but that one's wierd. Dude it's jar's example. Not mine. That's why I provided my own... that you didn't adress.
And my question pertains to the logic and reason that can be used to conclude that the world will end if no sacrifice is made. So the fact that it is possible to be imaginative and logical simultaneously is irrelevant as it doesn't answer that question does it? No, but it answers your other question. And this question was addressed by myself in the post you responded to, with the Rain Dance. But you didn't address it, so... So what?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Jon writes: When you say 'unevidenced', to what is it you are referring? Uh ... to the fact that there is no evidence that everything in the Bible is completely true.
Jon writes: It seems you believe science to be discriminatory in regards what counts as 'evidence'. No.
Jon writes: If you don't believe it discriminatory, then in what way is the the 'assumption that the Bible is completely true' unevidenced? In the sense that it is unevidenced. You must be referring to specific types of evidence, because the claim that there is no evidence to support 'that everything in the Bible is completely true' is simply false. Jon Check out Apollo's Temple!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
I'm not sure I see how the things you say in this post have any relationship to the argument you have been trying to make that verified predictions vindicate theories and demonstrate them as 'being in accordance with reality'. But, let's go at them anyway and see where it takes us:
Jon writes: Straggler writes: Those that have made verified predictions are superior theories to those that have not. Of course. Well done for finally getting past your mantra of falsification. Huh? Your statement had nothing to do with our debate on falsification/vindication; my agreement with it had no bearing on my adherence to my previous arguments regarding falsification/vindication.
If the logical consequences of one theory are verified to a high degree (as was the case with the Big Bang theory) then that theory will be considered superior. But, of course, the opposite of this is not at all what I said in the quote, though I can see why you wish I had said it; it's easy to refute on account of being stupid.
quote: Both theories have had their 'predictions' (now 'logical consequences'?) verified. Your attempted rebuttal does nothing to address this problem with your previously-stated position. Why don't you try to address the actual points against your position instead of the crappier ones you wish I were making?
By the mantra of falsification which you have been adhering to up until this point a theory with a glut of verified predictions is no better or worse than any old unfalsified nonsense one can pluck from ones arse. Again, not what I have said, and not at all an implication of my argument. Perhaps you can point out how my argument leads to these consequences; it'd delight me to no end for it to be falsified.
But just in case you are still insisting that the Cosmic Microwave Background is a falsification of the steady state hypothesis rather than a verification of the Big Bang theory - Have a look at this NASA page (it doesn’t even mention the steady state hypothesis) I'm well aware of your propensity for citing the opinions of others as support of your own position, but I've yet to see anyone demonstrate that opinions are naturally true.
The fact is that verified predictions add considerable weight to a scientific theory ... Of course they do. [ABE]But this has nothing to do with vindicating conclusions as accurate models of reality.[/ABE] But it is incredibly difficult to construct theories that predict, and lead to the discovery of, new evidence and which can thus be demonstrated as being in accordance with reality. Of course it is. [ABE]But this has nothing to do with vindicating conclusions as accurate models of reality.[/ABE] But what have they actually discovered as a direct result of their theories and conclusions? Lots of things; we've entire forums full of the kind of crap they discover. What's your point? Admin already asked that we toss the silly question-games aside; so if you've a point to make with these questions, make it.
And if the answer to that question is nothing I question whether what they are doing can accurately be called science at all. On what grounds? That they might be wrong? Jon Edited by Jon, : clarity Edited by Jon, : ABEs added for clarification per Admin's request. Check out Apollo's Temple!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
You must be referring to specific types of evidence, because the claim that there is no evidence to support 'that everything in the Bible is completely true' is simply false. We are talking about the same Bible, yes? The one which supplies no evidence for the unevidenced story about the unevidenced snake talking in an unevidenced way to unevidenced people about an unevidenced magic tree for which there is no evidence?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2126 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
Here's your magic tree:
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
So you are determined to remain unthinkingly ignorant as to why the scientific method is as it is?
jar writes: And strictly rational is irrelevant. It obviously isn't irrelavant to the question of whether the conclusion under consideration is derived from "reason logic and reality" as you asserted rather than the more human qualities I have argued in favour of. Creative and instinctive qualities which the scientific method is designed to counter in the name of accuracy and reliability.
jar writes: Straggler writes: So we seek human-like conscious intent regardless of whether any exists or not and the result is that we imbue mindless physical processes with anthropomorphic traits (emotions, desires etc.) These are not the actions of a purely logical and rational being. These are the actions of beings who have evolved instinctive methods of making sense of the world. Instinctive methods which the formalised methods of science sometime need to overcome if accuracy and reliability is to be achieved. Of course, but whatever? If you agree with the above it is difficult to see how you reconcile this with your previous statement that the Aztec belief that without sacrifice the world would end is "both reasonable and logical". How were the Aztecs not assigning anthropomorphic traits to nature in the forms of gods in order to come to their conclusions regarding the need for human sacrifice? Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Jon writes: Both theories have had their 'predictions' (now 'logical consequences'?)... Yes Jon. That is how scientific predictions are constructed. If you don't understand this it is no wonder you are failing to see where it is you are going wrong in your OP.
Jon writes: Both theories have had their 'predictions' (now 'logical consequences'?) verified. Your attempted rebuttal does nothing to address this problem with your previously-stated position. Then you have misunderstood. I suspect that this is because you are foolishly taking the words "vindicated" and "verifed" to pertain to some sort of proof that a theory is true. But we are not talking about proving that theories are true. We are talking about verifying that our theories are accurate models of reality and the method by which we we can determine which of our theories is the most accurate. If two theories (e.g. Newtons theory of gravitation and Einsteins General Relativity) both predict the same verified observation then all you have learned is that both of these theories are more accurate than a third theory which is unable to make such predictions. To distinguish between Newtonian and GR theories of gravitation you need to find a prediction on which they disagree or which only one is capable of making. Which part of this are you struggling to comprehend?
Jon writes: Straggler writes: The fact is that verified predictions add considerable weight to a scientific theory..... Of course they do. Right. So not all unfalsified theories are equal are they?
Jon writes: Straggler writes: Those that have made verified predictions are superior theories to those that have not. Of course. Right. So not all unfalsified theories are equal are they?
Jon writes: Straggler writes: When you can explain how you determine which of two unfalsified theories best describes reality. One cannot make a determination given these options. How do you square this with you answers above? The obvious answer to the question is "The one that is able to make the most accurate predictions". As per the GR Vs Newtonian theories of gravitation example above. Which part of this are you struggling to comprehend?
Jon writes: Lots of things; we've entire forums full of the kind of crap they discover. Such as?
Jon writes: Straggler writes: And if the answer to that question is nothing I question whether what they are doing can accurately be called science at all. On what grounds? That they might be wrong? No. On the grounds that discovery is a natural long term consequence of the correct application of the scientific method. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
CS writes: You asked both... No. I asked one in the context of the other and both you and jar decided to answer the latter in a way that had no bearing on the primary question.
CS writes: Then your questions don't make any sense. They make absolute sense in the context of jar's example.
CS writes:
That's why I provided my own... that you didn't adress. I thought I agreed that seeking causal relationships was a perfectly rational thing to do? But how does that pertain to the world ending if a sacrifice isn't made? How does one causally conclude that without a rather large dose of imagination of the more creative variety? That was my question to jar and frankly he seems unable to answer it without contradicting himself.
CS writes: So what? So having tidied that up I will ask whether or not you still think dancing angels should be considered no more or less likley to be the cause of gravitational effects than space-time curvature? As you have previously claimed. Are you still wedded to your ridiculous notion that it is the unfalsified status of a proposal alone that matters? Edited by Straggler, : Fix quotes
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13014 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
Jon writes: Admin already asked that we toss the silly question-games aside; so if you've a point to make with these questions, make it. Since my moderator request has been mentioned, I'll offer additional clarification.
Jon writes: The fact is that verified predictions add considerable weight to a scientific theory ... Of course they do. And?
But it is incredibly difficult to construct theories that predict, and lead to the discovery of, new evidence and which can thus be demonstrated as being in accordance with reality. Of course it is. And? Some additional text as to the nature of what is missing would have been helpful. Please, no replies to this message.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 414 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
< content removed per suggestion of Admin seen below >
Edited by jar, : no point in responding Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13014 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
jar writes: Since I have never made such a claim and you still seem to misrunderstand what I have said, why should I respond? You should respond in order to correct the misunderstanding. If you've decided this isn't possible then no response is necessary. You can click on the "Jar has not yet responded link" and it will change to "Jar acknowledges this reply". Please, no replies to this message.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
jar writes: Straggler writes: If you agree with the above it is difficult to see how you reconcile this with your previous statement that the Aztec belief that without sacrifice the world would end is "both reasonable and logical". How were the Aztecs not assigning anthropomorphic traits to nature in the forms of gods in order to come to their conclusions regarding the need for human sacrifice? Since I never made such a claim why would even respond? Yes you did - I quote - "I would go so far as to say that as an example, the Aztec belief that without sacrifice the world would end was both reasonable and logical,...."
jar writes: Straggler writes: It obviously isn't irrelavant to the question of whether the conclusion under consideration is derived from "reason logic and reality" as you asserted rather than the more human qualities I have argued in favour of. Creative and instinctive qualities which the scientific method is designed to counter in the name of accuracy and reliability. Since I have never made such a claim and you still seem to misrunderstand what I have said, why should I respond? Because you have made "such a claim". Here it is:
jar writes: I would go so far as to say that as an example, the Aztec belief that without sacrifice the world would end was both reasonable and logical, and that to test the null hypothesis, not perform the rites and risk the world coming to an end would be the illogical, unreasonable and irresponsible behavior.
Straggler writes: Once the belief is already ingrained acting on it is arguably perfectly reasonable from the point of view of the irrational human beings that we are. But where did such beliefs originate and can these sources be accurately described as "rational" or would "human" be a better description? Of course they are rational and they originate from the same source as all other answers, from using reason and logic and reality. So there in blue and white are the claims you now say you haven't made.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
The one which supplies no evidence for the unevidenced story about the unevidenced snake talking in an unevidenced way to unevidenced people about an unevidenced magic tree for which there is no evidence? But there is evidence: The Bible. Check out Apollo's Temple!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4210 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
But there is evidence: The Bible. Hearsay, it wouldn't stand up in court. There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969 Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Jon writes: Both theories have had their 'predictions' (now 'logical consequences'?)... Yes Jon. That is how scientific predictions are constructed. If you don't understand this Jeesh; I argued umpteen posts ago that 'predictions' are merely 'implications'. What in God's name would make you think I did not believe this to be the case aside from your glaring unwillingness to read the posts to which you are responding?
quote: I suspect that this is because you are foolishly taking the words "vindicated" and "verifed" to pertain to some sort of proof that a theory is true. Actually, you were requested to address this several posts ago, but never did:
quote: A misunderstanding of your position on the matter was unavoidable given your unwillingness to actually attempt clarification of your own position.
But we are not talking about proving that theories are true. We are talking about verifying that our theories are accurate models of reality and the method by which we we can determine which of our theories is the most accurate. Huh? Then what in the hell do you mean by 'accurate models of reality'?
If two theories (e.g. Newtons theory of gravitation and Einsteins General Relativity) both predict the same verified observation then all you have learned is that both of these theories are more accurate than a third theory which is unable to make such predictions. To distinguish between Newtonian and GR theories of gravitation you need to find a prediction on which they disagree or which only one is capable of making. Which part of this are you struggling to comprehend? I've never made any claims against what you have said. In fact, I have repeatedly argued this pointthat we cannot get one theory in front of the other without falsifying one of them. Are you intentionally trying to avoid understanding my argument?
Jon writes: Straggler writes: The fact is that verified predictions add considerable weight to a scientific theory..... Of course they do. Right. So not all unfalsified theories are equal are they?
Jon writes: Straggler writes: Those that have made verified predictions are superior theories to those that have not. Of course. Right. So not all unfalsified theories are equal are they? I have never argued anything that would imply my position to be that all unfalsified theories are equal; in fact, as with the other arguments you make, I've repeatedly said exactly the opposite of what you think I have.
Jon writes: Straggler writes: When you can explain how you determine which of two unfalsified theories best describes reality. One cannot make a determination given these options. How do you square this with you answers above? Huh? In what way does it even need to be squared except in the mind of someone who is obstinately illiterate?
Jon writes: Lots of things; we've entire forums full of the kind of crap they discover. Such as?
Jon writes: Straggler writes: And if the answer to that question is nothing I question whether what they are doing can accurately be called science at all. On what grounds? That they might be wrong? No. On the grounds that discovery is a natural long term consequence of the correct application of the scientific method. None of this addresses the questions presented to you, nor does it help to clarify your position. Anyway, Straggler, this will be my last reply to you; I've no interest in attempting to continue a discussion with someone who, in all apparent willingness, misrepresents my position and refuses to read in even the most cursory manner the posts to which he is responding. Perhaps if you can go back and actually address some of the issues raised against your position, I can come through and attempt to understand what you are getting at. After three threads of this same nonsense with you, though, I've realized you're likely to remain a dead-end when it come to mutual understanding through productive discussion. You've simply no intention of being understood. I've no intention of continuing to try to understand you. Jon Edited by Jon, : No reason given. Check out Apollo's Temple!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024