Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9073 total)
587 online now:
AZPaul3, dwise1, nwr, PaulK, Tangle (5 members, 582 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Post Volume: Total: 893,259 Year: 4,371/6,534 Month: 585/900 Week: 109/182 Day: 16/27 Hour: 0/2

Announcements: Security Update Released


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Hi
jar
Member
Posts: 33904
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


(2)
Message 76 of 83 (891693)
02-09-2022 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by Hangdawg13
02-09-2022 9:04 AM


Re: What is waving?
Congrats and condolences as appropriate.

My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Hangdawg13, posted 02-09-2022 9:04 AM Hangdawg13 has taken no action

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 3296
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 3.2


(1)
Message 77 of 83 (891694)
02-09-2022 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by Hangdawg13
02-09-2022 9:04 AM


Re: What is waving?
You are truly God's doG.

I don't know what that means.

Well, there are no deadlines or expectations here.

Good luck!

Edited by Tanypteryx, : No reason given.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq


This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Hangdawg13, posted 02-09-2022 9:04 AM Hangdawg13 has taken no action

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4071
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 3.1


(2)
Message 78 of 83 (891728)
02-10-2022 9:14 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Hangdawg13
02-08-2022 1:50 PM


Different Strokes for Different Folks
Hangdawg13 writes:

Suppose your filter is the scientific method.

Okay, sounds like a good place to start.

To discover anything with the scientific method, the thing you discover must reliably repeat.

Not quite true. And the part that isn't "quite true" may be leading you to think incorrect things about science.

1. This is very important: Anything and everything that can possibly exist is discoverable by science.

2. What you may be thinking of is: To know anything for sure with the scientific method, the thing you want to know for sure must reliably repeat.
-and, really, what other way actually allows you to "know something for sure" unless it's repeatable?
-if you can actually identify another method - I'm personally incredibly interested in it

To understand the power of Science, you really need to understand the difference between discovery and "knowing for sure" and how Science applies itself differently to the different areas.

Scientific Discovery includes (but is not limited to):
-guessing
-trying anything at all
-being illogical
-being irrational
-following personal curiosity
-being surprised

The results of this stage can include (again, are not limited to):
-the thing doesn't exist
-the thing does exist
-the thing may exist, don't have enough information yet
-various levels of 'confidence' along multiples of the above as more and more information is gathered

Scientific Knowing For Sure includes (requires):
-reliable repeatability
-the same results repeated for multiple different people
-describing the thing in as much detail as possible, ensuring that terms are well defined and cannot be confused with other already-existing-things

Please note that none of the "Knowing for Sure" items are included in the "Discovery" stage.

This leads to a few issues and leads some materialistic scientists to make the nonsensical statements like, "consciousness is an illusion."

Many scientists make nonsensical statements.
That's the power of Science.
The nonsensical makes people curious. Others will test and check and double-check.
Once many people investigate... a consensus will begin to emerge.
That consensus lead by the evidence will describe the "best possible guess" of the thing's existence in reality.
ALL things in Science can always be overturned at any time if new evidence shows it's wrong.

All 5 of your "problems with Science" are actually the strengths of science... you're just picking 10% of what science does around those issues and saying "see! see?!!! Look at the problems that exist in Science!!"

Yes - those problems exist.
And, of course, the other 90% of science is built exactly to use those problems as strengths in order to increase "what we know" about reality.

Science step 1: A problem occurs that creates a controversy
-problem can be nonsensical, or labelled as "an illusion" or claimed by arrogant closed-minded dicks

Science step 2: More and more different people study the controversy
-as more and more people study it, some will agree with the original claim while others disagree

Science step 3: As study grows, so does evidence about the controversy
-the evidence will support and reject various different claims... regardless of who originally claimed them and whether or not they were regarded as "nonsensical" originally.

Science step 4: The evidence will grow and become overwhelming to support one main claim
-those who are honest and follow the evidence will see this, adjust, and Science and our knowledge will grow
-those who do not follow the evidence will obviously be seen as such and will eventually become known as 'quacks' or even 'liars' if they're too arrogant

Science step 5: The evidence grows even more, and the main claim is refined into smaller details
-our knowledge of reality grows

...but if NOVELTY is a real thing... if the universe is evolving into something truly NEW, then the scientific method will filter out that aspect of the universe

Can you provide one example of Science ever filtering out an aspect of the universe that's known to be real?

I bet that if you provide me with an alternative system than Science for figuring things out about reality... that I can do one of two things: Show you how they simply follow Science anyway, or I can show you an example of them filtering out an aspect of the universe that's known to be real.
Example: Fundamental Christianity: Filters out the known-to-be-real aspect of realty that "no world-wide flood where only a hand-ful of humans survived has ever occurred."

If you cannot provide one example of Science ever filtering out an aspect of the universe that's known to be real... then what better method do you propose to use in order to focus on a map that's focused on discovering the truth about reality?

Please also take note... NOVELTY is not filtered out of Science.
It's simply still in the discovery stage.
If it's ever known to be real... it will be Science that confirms this.
Unless, again... you have another method that confirms things to be real that's better than Science?

And right there, power enters the picture. The ultimate goal of knowledge is power or potential power.

Try not to over generalize... it will lead you into thinking things that are not true.

YOUR "ultimate goal of knowledge" may very well be power or potential power.
MY "ultimate goal of knowledge" is simply to feed my curiosity - I get bored, and knowledge is fun for me. But I don't give two shits about this "power" you speak of.

I have a very utilitarian view of truth. That which is most true is that which is most useful in accomplishing a goal.

I think that's a very easily-corrupted way of framing an important aspect of your thoughts.

Frame your goals in a certain way... and you're then framing your "truth."
To me... that which is most true is... that which is most true. Why does it need another limitation or addition onto it? Why can't truth exist on it's own, independent of us or our goals? It does have it's own word to describe it and doesn't seem to require our intervention or attention.

There is also a great deal of stress and anxiety caused by encountering things that aren't on your map.

Again... try not to over generalize.
This is a YOU thing. Not a ME thing and certainly not an EVERYONE thing.

I find it leaning towards exciting to encounter things that aren't on my map.
-some can be scary or stressful
-others can be beautiful or even helpful

Others different from both of us live to strive constantly to encounter things that aren't on their map and make it a daily devotion to search for such things.
-such people are not caused stress and anxiety, but gain great pleasure and security from such searching

People are different.
There are certainly many similarities... but over generalization leads to over simplification which leads to missing out on a whole lot of the details.

She wore a path along her boundary between the known (yard) and the obscure unknown beyond. I'm more like that dog.

Many people are.
Many people aren't.
Many would cross the fence.
Many would focus more on the house itself.

Either way... you're gaining something, and missing out on something else.

Your path is your path. There is no right or wrong path. Only the one that works for you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Hangdawg13, posted 02-08-2022 1:50 PM Hangdawg13 has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by AZPaul3, posted 02-10-2022 11:45 AM Stile has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 6642
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.2


(1)
Message 79 of 83 (891740)
02-10-2022 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by Stile
02-10-2022 9:14 AM


Re: Different Strokes for Different Folks
To know anything for sure with the scientific method, the thing you want to know for sure must reliably repeat.

A whole lot of the phenomena science analyses are one-off events never to be repeated again. Science does not depend on repeatability of an event, though this is the ideal.

Repeatability, however, is still necessary.

Science depends on the evidence and the logical reasonable interpretation of that evidence. And in non-repeating events scientific repeatability is in the form of peer review of the analysis. In science, reproducibility is key. If not the event itself, then reproducibility of the analysis to achieve the same conclusion, is required. Like Chicxulub, it took two generations of scientists looking at the same evidence and arguing, heatedly, before a scientific consensus was reached.


Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Stile, posted 02-10-2022 9:14 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Tanypteryx, posted 02-10-2022 1:02 PM AZPaul3 has replied
 Message 83 by Stile, posted 02-11-2022 8:16 AM AZPaul3 has taken no action

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 3296
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 3.2


(2)
Message 80 of 83 (891750)
02-10-2022 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by AZPaul3
02-10-2022 11:45 AM


Re: Different Strokes for Different Folks
Repeatability, however, is still necessary.

The whole event doesn't necessarily have to be repeated. For example, we can study the radioactive decay of specific isotopes into other specific isotopes in the laboratory and in the aftermath of distant supernovae. Thus we can analyze supernovae piece by piece, repeatability.

Edited by Tanypteryx, : No reason given.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq


This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by AZPaul3, posted 02-10-2022 11:45 AM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by AZPaul3, posted 02-10-2022 1:49 PM Tanypteryx has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 6642
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.2


(1)
Message 81 of 83 (891753)
02-10-2022 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Tanypteryx
02-10-2022 1:02 PM


Re: Different Strokes for Different Folks
Sorry I was unclear.

What I meant was the repeatability of such one-off events is in different groups analysing the data and arriving at the same conclusions. Which you should have with any science study.

The point is that some noobees think that one-off events (or events from billions of years ago) cannot be scientifically studied unless they're repeatable.

Bull.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.


Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Tanypteryx, posted 02-10-2022 1:02 PM Tanypteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Tanypteryx, posted 02-10-2022 2:04 PM AZPaul3 has seen this message

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 3296
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 82 of 83 (891755)
02-10-2022 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by AZPaul3
02-10-2022 1:49 PM


Re: Different Strokes for Different Folks
Sorry I was unclear.

I was the unclear one. I should have said in addition to what you said.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq


This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by AZPaul3, posted 02-10-2022 1:49 PM AZPaul3 has seen this message

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4071
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 83 of 83 (891785)
02-11-2022 8:16 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by AZPaul3
02-10-2022 11:45 AM


Re: Different Strokes for Different Folks
AZPaul3 writes:

A whole lot of the phenomena science analyses are one-off events never to be repeated again. Science does not depend on repeatability of an event, though this is the ideal.

Repeatability, however, is still necessary.

Very true.

My posts always go so long... and I still miss so much

In my verbose-way, I would explain it like this:

There's "data" and there's "repeatability."
Both are important, and both increase our levels of confidence in the conclusion.

Repeatability doesn't necessarily require additional events to occur.
As long as the observation is repeatable: 4 apples is more than 3. There is only 1 event: 4 apples, and 3 apples. But the observation is repeatable as long as the apples are there on the table. Or as long as a picture of the apples is taken and that picture is available. 1 event. But it can have 1 observer repeat his observations many times. Or many observers can come at different times and repeat the same observation. Still just 1 event.

Increase the data, and "repeatability" increases even more.

Make 10 tables. Each with 4 apples and 3 apples. The observations can be repeated 10 more times for each observer.

More events make more data which makes for more repeatability which makes for more confidence.

However, repeatability itself does not require more data... it is possible (if the data can be captured correctly) to do repeatable observations on a single event.
More data is just "incredibly helpful" for more repeatability and helps the confidence and understanding grow greatly.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by AZPaul3, posted 02-10-2022 11:45 AM AZPaul3 has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022